Opinion
28407-7-III
12-06-2012
STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent, v. KIM ANN SCHARNHORST, Appellant.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Korsmo, C.J.
The State concedes that the search of Kim Scharnhorst's purse violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. We accept the concession and reverse Ms. Scharnhorst's conviction for possession of methamphetamine.
FACTS
Ms. Scharnhorst was a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation. The driver was arrested and the trooper decided to search the vehicle pursuant to that arrest. He picked up Ms. Scharnhorst's purse to give to her and noticed a set of brass knuckles in the purse. He arrested Ms. Scharnhorst for possessing a dangerous weapon and searched her pursuant to the arrest. A bag of methamphetamine was discovered.
The defense moved to suppress the evidence as being the fruit of an unlawful vehicle search. The trial court denied the motion to suppress and Ms. Scharnhorst was convicted of unlawful possession of methamphetamine.
She timely appealed to this court, which subsequently stayed the case pending the decision in State v. Snapp, 174 Wn.2d 177, 275 P.3d 289 (2012). After the decision in Snapp, this court lifted its stay and directed the parties to file supplemental briefs addressing the decision. Both parties agreed that Snapp required reversal of the conviction.
ANALYSIS
Little needs to be said. In Snapp, the Washington Supreme Court determined that vehicle searches incident to the arrest of the driver are not proper under article I, section 7. The parties agree that the trooper conducted the vehicle search pursuant to pre-Snapp authority that is no longer valid and that Ms. Scharnhorst has standing to assert the constitutional violation. State v. Jones, 146 Wn.2d 328, 45 P.3d 1062 (2002).
The evidence supports the parties' joint view that the purse was searched during the vehicle search. While not improper prior to Snapp, the search is now recognized as improper under our constitution. The evidence must be suppressed.
The conviction is reversed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.
WE CONCUR: Sweeney, J. Siddoway, J.