Opinion
No. 57408-6-I.
April 23, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 05-1-05247-0, Nicole Machines, J., entered October 28, 2005.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Becker, J., concurred in by Coleman and Agid, JJ.
An officer stopped Appellant Kenneth Haala on the street because he noticed that Haala fit the description of a man involved in three recent purse snatching incidents in the immediate area: red shirt, black pants, long black ponytail, and Hispanic appearance. The officer also saw that Haala was keeping his face turned away from the police car. As the trial court concluded, these facts gave the officer a reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity, justifying the stop.
According to testimony at a suppression hearing, Seattle Police Officer Steve Kim stopped Haala at midday on a Wednesday in February 2004. He was on the 800 block of Northwest 83rd Street in the Greenwood neighborhood. Within the previous two weeks there had been two purse snatchings close by. The first was at a store on the 300 block of Northwest 85th Street. The thief was described as a Hispanic man with a ponytail. The second was at a coffee shop on the 600 block of Northwest 85th Street. The thief was described as a Hispanic man with long black hair in a ponytail, a red shirt, black pants, and a jacket. Officer Kim had helped to look for the thief in the second incident, to no avail. He was also aware of a third purse snatching in that area, although he could not remember exactly when or where it reportedly occurred. This thief had also been described as a Hispanic man with a ponytail. Officer Kim believed that a woman was injured in one of these incidents. Since becoming aware of these three incidents, he had not seen anyone in the area who matched the description of the purse snatcher.
On the day of the stop, Officer Kim was wearing his uniform and was driving a marked police car. He was stopped at a red light when he saw Haala leaving a small corner grocery store. Haala was wearing a red shirt and black pants and a dark sweatshirt. He had his hair in a ponytail and appeared to be Hispanic.
Officer Kim's car was pointed west on Northwest 83rd Street as that street meets 8th Street Northwest. Haala crossed the intersection westbound, then southbound. He kept his face turned away from the officer the entire time, approximately one minute. Officer Kim had 11 years of experience with the police department and his work frequently involves contacting suspects based solely on descriptions provided to him. He believed Haala was trying to avoid looking at him and labeled this behavior "bizarre".
Report of Proceedings (September 26, 2005) at 26.
Based on Haala's behavior, clothes, hairstyle, Hispanic appearance, and location, Officer Kim believed he matched the description that had emerged from the previous purse snatching incidents. He pulled his patrol car over near Haala, got out, walked up behind Haala, and told him to stop for a minute. Haala still did not turn around to look at him. He refused Officer Kim's repeated requests to stop. With the help of another officer, Officer Kim eventually arrested Haala for obstruction. A search incident to arrest turned up cocaine.
Charged with possession, Haala moved to suppress on the ground that Officer Kim had illegally seized him the moment he told Haala to stop. At the CrR 3.6 hearing, the State called Officer Kim and another officer who had helped arrest Haala. Haala did not testify at the hearing.
The court denied the motion to suppress. The court entered written findings and conclusions summarizing the reasons the stop was valid: "the totality of the circumstances of the defendant's physical appearance, his clothing, his suspicious behavior, the close proximity to the other purse snatching incidents, the fact that the last incident had occurred only one week earlier, and Officer Kim's experience as a police officer". After a bench trial on stipulated facts, the court found Haala guilty of possessing cocaine and sentenced him to 15 days in jail.
Clerk's Papers at 25 (Findings of fact and Conclusions of law, entered October 28, 2005; Conclusion of law (a)).
This appeal followed.
We review a trial court's findings of fact in a suppression motion for substantial evidence — evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-minded, rational person of the truth of the finding. State v. Maxfield, 125 Wn.2d 378, 385, 886 P.2d 123 (1994). Conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d 1, 9, 948 P.2d 1280 (1997).
Haala's challenges to the findings of fact are readily disposed of. The trial court found that Haala was wearing a dark jacket when he was stopped. Haala points out there was no testimony about a jacket. However, there was testimony that Haala was wearing a "dark sweatshirt" when arrested. The discrepancy is immaterial under the circumstances. He also challenges the finding that Haala matched the description of the purse snatching suspect. Officer Kim's description of Haala provided substantial evidence to support this finding.
Report of Proceedings (September 26, 2005) at 8.
Primarily, Haala challenges the conclusion that the stop was justified. He argues that the information gathered from the previous incidents was too stale and too general to give rise to a reasonable suspicion that he was the purse snatcher.
In the absence of probable cause to arrest, police may briefly detain and question an individual if they have a well founded suspicion based on objective facts that he is connected to actual or potential criminal activity. State v. Pressley, 64 Wn. App. 591, 595, 825 P.2d 749 (1992) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 25-26, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968)). A reasonable or well-founded suspicion exists if the officer can point to "specific and articulable facts" which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion. Pressley, 64 Wn. App. at 595 (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 21). The court evaluates the totality of the circumstances presented to the investigating officer and takes into account the officer's training and experience. State v. Glover, 116 Wn.2d 509, 514, 806 P.2d 760 (1991).
A brief detention for questioning is not justified where it is based on "an incomplete and stale description of a suspect that could, plainly, have fit many people." United States v. Jones, 619 F.2d 494, 498 (5th Cir. 1980). For example, justification was lacking for a stop of a black Chevrolet with two black males driving in the "general vicinity" of a Farm Store where the investigating officer knew that two black males in a black or blue Chevrolet had been involved in a series of two-to four-week old Farm Store robberies. United States v. Rias, 524 F.2d 118, 119 (5th Cir. 1975). See also State v. Burns, 520 S.E.2d 39 (Ga.Ct.App. 1999) (report of purse snatchers who were driving an older, yellow Monte Carlo did not justify stopping an older yellow or tan Monte Carlo three days later and two miles away.)
In Jones, two plainclothes officers in an unmarked car noticed Jones walking along the street. The day before, one of the officers had heard a description of a man wanted for armed robbery of a gas station: "black male, 5 feet 6 inches to 5 feet 9 inches tall and weighing between 150 and 180 pounds, with a medium afro hair style, who was wearing jeans and a long denim jacket." Jones, 619 F.2d 497. Jones matched this general description, and the officers approached him. He avoided them, crossing the street several times. When called upon to stop, he ran into the woods. He was subdued, arrested, and eventually convicted for a crime other than the gas station robbery. His conviction was reversed on appeal because the stop was held invalid. The description was too general. And no supporting inference of criminal activity could be drawn from the efforts Jones made to avoid the officers; his "evasive actions and flight from two strange men riding in an unmarked car and exhibiting no indicia of lawful authority were only natural reactions to the circumstances." Jones, 619 F.2d at 498.
Unlike in Jones, Officer Kim was wearing a uniform and driving a marked car, and was therefore justified in his belief that Haala was consciously trying to avoid police observation when he kept turning his face away. Though an obvious attempt to avoid police officers may not alone provide reasonable suspicion, such an attempt may be considered in determining whether an officer's suspicion of criminal activity was reasonable. See State v. Thompson, 93 Wn.2d 838, 841-42, 613 P.2d 525 (1980); State v. Walker, 66 Wn. App. 622, 629, 834 P.2d 41 (1992).
Also, the description known to Officer Kim was more specific than the description of the armed robber in Jones and the description in Rias of black men driving a black or blue Chevrolet. What Officer Kim knew of the purse snatching suspect included not only ethnic appearance and gender but also a distinctive hairstyle and clothing. Even more important was the pattern: purse snatching committed by a person fitting this description had occurred repeatedly within a few weeks in an area of a few blocks. The pattern gave Officer Kim good reason to suspect that the thief in each case was one individual who had targeted that particular area and was likely to return. Officer Kim had been on the lookout for the suspect in this area, and Haala was the first person he saw who matched the description.
Haala contends that the information about criminal activity that had occurred a week or more previously was stale, and the staleness should have weighed compellingly in favor of granting the motion to suppress. This argument overlooks the fact that Officer Kim was investigating criminal activity that was ongoing in nature. Inherent in the factors to be weighed when considering whether a Terry stop was justified is the general interest in effective crime prevention and detection. United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 228, 105 S. Ct. 675; 83 L. Ed. 2d 604 (1985). The interest in protecting the neighborhood from more purse-snatching adds weight to the justification for Officer Kim's intrusion that might be lacking if there had not been a recent localized pattern of purse snatchings apparently committed by the same person.
The trial court's findings support the conclusion that the stop was based on reasonable suspicion. The motion to suppress was properly denied.
Affirmed.
WE CONCUR: