From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

State v. Harrell

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Jul 3, 2006
133 Wn. App. 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006)

Opinion

No. 56601-6-I.

July 3, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Snohomish County, No. 05-1-00748-1, Michael T. Downes, J., entered July 18, 2005.

Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.

David Bruce Koch, Nielson Broman Koch PLLC, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122-2842.

Counsel for Respondent(s), Charles Franklin Blackman, c/o Snohomish County Pros, 3000 Rockefeller Ave, Everett, WA 98201-4060.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Bollinger appeals his conviction for possession of methamphetamine, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. Relying primarily on City of Redmond v. Moore, 151 Wn.2d 664, 91 P.3d 875 (2004), he argues inter alia that evidence seized in a search incident to an arrest for driving with a suspended license must be suppressed if the suspension itself violated due process. Our State Supreme Court and all three divisions of this court have rejected Bollinger's arguments. State v. Potter, No. 77822-1 (consol. with No. 77849-3) 2006 Wash. LEXIS 351 (Apr. 27, 2006); State v. Holmes, 129 Wn. App. 24, 117 P.3d 360 (2005); State v. Potter, 129 Wn. App. 494, 119 P.3d 877 (2005); State v. Carnahan, 130 Wn. App. 159, 122 P.3d 187 (2005); State v. Pacas, 130 Wn. App. 446, 123 P.3d 130 (2005).

Affirmed.

COLEMAN, APPELWICK, and BECKER, JJ.


Summaries of

State v. Harrell

The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One
Jul 3, 2006
133 Wn. App. 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006)
Case details for

State v. Harrell

Case Details

Full title:THE STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. WILLIAM LEE BOLLINGER HARRELL…

Court:The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One

Date published: Jul 3, 2006

Citations

133 Wn. App. 1039 (Wash. Ct. App. 2006)
133 Wash. App. 1039