Opinion
No. 30551-8-II
March 22, 2005
Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County. Docket No: 03-1-01762-2. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 06/26/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Kitty-Ann Van Doorninck.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Sheri Lynn Arnold, Attorney at Law, PO Box 7718, Tacoma, WA 98406-0718.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Miry Kim, Pierce Co Pros Attorney, 930 Tacoma Ave S Rm 946, Tacoma, WA 98402-2171.
Alan Vanderkinter appeals a Pierce County Superior Court jury conviction of harassment. He claims the trial court erred in (1) admitting his pre-Miranda statements and (2) failing to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law after a CrR 3.5 hearing. We affirm.
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
The trial court entered written findings and conclusions after Vanderkinter filed his opening brief.
Facts
Teri Shinn-Sorger was working in her yard when she noticed a blue-green Bronco with a wide white stripe pull into her driveway. Shinn-Sorger recognized the vehicle as belonging to an acquaintance, Vanderkinter. As the Bronco drove past, Shinn-Sorger saw the barrel of a gun point out the window in her direction. The driver yelled several derogatory remarks at her. Shinn-Sorger recognized Vanderkinter's voice. The driver continued to make threatening verbal comments as he drove away.
Pierce County sheriff deputies Anthony Filing and Darren Witt responded to a call to Shinn-Sorger's residence. She provided a description of Vanderkinter and the Bronco, along with his address. Filing and Witt arrived at Vanderkinter's residence, a travel trailer, along with Deputy John Ussery and his police dog. They saw a Bronco matching the description given by Shinn-Sorger parked next to the trailer.
Filing and Witt knocked on the trailer door, announcing they were Pierce County deputies. Vanderkinter came out of the trailer and shut the door behind him. He stated no one else was in the trailer. Vanderkinter claimed that his Bronco had been stolen and returned that day without his knowledge. He denied driving the Bronco recently and stated he did not possess any weapons. Filing checked Vanderkinter's status on the law enforcement support agency (LESA). He arrested Vanderkinter after discovering a warrant and read him Miranda warnings. The deputies discovered a female inside the trailer, as well as a shotgun in the bedroom.
Vanderkinter moved to suppress his pre-Miranda statements. The trial court ruled that the statements were admissible as the result of investigative-type questioning, not custodial interrogation.
A jury convicted Vanderkinter of harassment and he appeals. Analysis
Suppression Hearing
Vanderkinter first argues the trial court erred in admitting his pre-Miranda statements. Miranda warnings are required when a custodial interrogation begins. State v. Templeton, 148 Wn.2d 193, 208, 59 P.3d 632 (2002). An investigative encounter with a suspect based on reasonable suspicion not amounting to probable cause does not require Miranda warnings. State v. Huynh, 49 Wn. App. 192, 201, 742 P.2d 160 (1987), review denied, 109 Wn.2d 1024 (1988).
We review de novo the admissibility of statements resulting from a custodial interrogation. State v. Solomon, 114 Wn. App. 781, 788, 60 P.3d 1215 (2002), review denied, 149 Wn.2d 1025 (2003). The standard is whether a reasonable person in the same situation would perceive that he was free to leave. State v. Cunningham, 116 Wn. App. 219, 228, 65 P.3d 325 (2003); State v. Ferguson, 76 Wn. App. 560, 566, 886 P.2d 1164 (1995). The question is not whether a person actually believed he was free to leave, but whether `such a person would believe he was in police custody of the degree associated with formal arrest.' Ferguson, 76 Wn. App. at 566. In contrast, an investigative encounter is not `inherently coercive' and Miranda warnings are unnecessary. State v. France, 121 Wn. App. 394, 399, 88 P.3d 1003 (2004); Cunningham, 116 Wn. App. at 228.
Shinn-Sorger told Filing that she recognized Vanderkinter's Bronco and voice during the incident. She provided his name, make of vehicle, and directions to his residence. When Filing, Witt, and Ussery arrived at Vanderkinter's residence, a Bronco matching the description was next to the trailer. The deputies found the Bronco at the specific address supplied by Shinn-Sorger, giving the deputies reasonable suspicion to believe Vanderkinter was there.
To determine who owned the Bronco, the deputies contacted the trailer's occupants. Vanderkinter answered the door when the deputies knocked, shut the door to the trailer, and walked out to his yard to address them. He stated his Bronco had been stolen, no one else was in the trailer, and there were no weapons on the premises. Nothing in this exchange indicates that Vanderkinter was in custody. The record supports the trial court's conclusion that the deputies' initial encounter with Vanderkinter was investigative, not requiring Miranda warnings. The trial court did not err in admitting Vanderkinter's statements. Delayed entry of written findings of fact and conclusions of law
Vanderkinter next contends that the trial court erred in failing to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law after the CrR 3.5 hearing. He asserts that the court's oral ruling does not fulfill this obligation and is insufficient for appellate review.
CrR 3.5 requires the trial court to enter written findings of fact and conclusions of law, including sections on undisputed facts, disputed facts, conclusions regarding disputed facts, and conclusions and reasons for admitting the defendant's statements. CrR 3.5(c); State v. Miller, 92 Wn. App. 693, 703, 964 P.2d 1196 (1998), review denied, 137 Wn.2d 1023 (1999). If the trial court enters findings of fact and conclusions of law after the appellant's brief is filed, we will reverse if the findings prejudice the defendant's appeal or the findings and conclusions appear tailored to meet the issues raised in the appellant's brief. State v. Head, 136 Wn.2d 619, 624, 964 P.2d 1187 (1998).
Here, the trial court did not enter the written findings and conclusions until after Vanderkinter filed his opening brief. Although Vanderkinter did not file a supplemental brief claiming prejudice, we will review the findings and conclusions to determine whether they were tailored to meet the issues presented in the brief.
The trial court entered the following written findings of fact and conclusions of law:
UNDISPUTED FACTS
1. Deputies Tony Filing and Darren Witt responded to the residence of the defendant on April 15, 2003 to investigate a complaint alleging that the defendant had recently pointed a shotgun at an acquaintance and had threatened to kill her.
2. Upon arrival at the defendant's residence, deputies knocked on the front door and the defendant eventually opened the door.
3. Deputies asked the defendant if he could step out to talk to them.
4. The defendant voluntarily stepped out of his residence and shut the door behind him.
5. Deputies initially questioned the defendant to determine if he had any involvement in the shotgun incident.
6. This questioning was part of the initial investigation.
7. During this questioning the defendant was not in handcuffs and he was free to leave at any time.
8. Defendant voluntarily answered the deputies' questions.
9. Following defendant's arrest, defendant was accurately advised of his Miranda rights.
10. Defendant understood those warnings
11. Defendant did not ask that the questioning stop.
12. Defendant did not ask for an attorney at any time during the questioning.
13. Defendant appeared intoxicated to one deputy, but not the other, but both Deputy Filing and Deputy Witt observed that the defendant understood what was happening.
DISPUTED FACTS
There are no disputed facts.
CONCLUSIONS AS TO ADMISSIBILITY
1. The questioning of defendant occurred while deputies were conducting an initial investigation and the questioning was not custodial, therefore Miranda warnings were not necessary.
2. Because the defendant's statements were made during a non-custodial interview, and were made freely and voluntarily, they are admissible in the State's case-in-chief.
Clerk's Papers at 111-13.
The purpose of the CrR 3.5 hearing was to determine whether the deputies' pre-Miranda questioning of Vanderkinter was investigatory or custodial. The evidence indicated Vanderkinter was cooperative. He voluntarily came out of his trailer and answered the deputies' questions. Vanderkinter made the statements before the deputies discovered the warrant and handcuffed him. The trial court's written findings of fact and conclusions of law are not tailored to meet Vanderkinter's appellate issues, and he has not shown prejudice from them.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
HUNT, J. and QUINN-BRINTNALL, C.J., concur.