Opinion
No. 24611-6-III.
October 10, 2006.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Whitman County, No. 05-1-00137-7, David Frazier, J., entered October 7, 2005.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Steven P Martonick, Snyder Martonick Law Offices, 155 Se Kamiaken St, Pullman, WA, 99163-2614.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Byron Bedirian, Prosecutor's Office, Po Box 30, Colfax, WA, 99111-0030.
Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Sweeney, C.J., and Brown, J.
Kenneth Wasankari appeals his possession of methamphetamine conviction. He contends the arresting officer failed to exercise discretion in deciding whether to arrest him and the court erred by failing to suppress the methamphetamine discovered during the search incident to arrest. We affirm.
On May 7, 2005, Trooper Bruce Blood was monitoring traffic when he observed Mr. Wasankari speeding. The trooper stopped him and checked his license and registration. He discovered Mr. Wasankari's license was suspended for not paying child support and decided to arrest him.
After calling for backup, Trooper Blood asked Mr. Wasankari to step out of his car. The trooper asked him if he had any weapons. Mr. Wasankari removed a folding knife and a broken pipe from his pockets. Trooper Blood noticed white residue on the pipe. Mr. Wasankari was arrested for driving with a suspended license and possessing drug paraphernalia.
Trooper Blood then searched him incident to the arrest. In the front pocket of Mr. Wasankari's jeans, the trooper found white powder in a tin container. Field testing identified the substance as methamphetamine. Trooper Blood told Mr. Wasankari he was also being arrested for possession of a controlled substance.
On June 24, Mr. Wasankari moved to suppress the methamphetamine. The court found the search and arrest were lawful and the methamphetamine was admissible. Mr. Wasankari was convicted of possession of methamphetamine. He appeals.
Mr. Wasankari contends his arrest was unlawful because the trooper did not properly exercise discretion when deciding whether to arrest him. Police officers have the statutory authority to arrest drivers with suspended licenses. RCW 10.31.100(3)(e). Officers, however, have the discretion to either take the drivers to jail or cite and release them. RCW 46.64.015(1).
In State v. Pulfrey, 154 Wn.2d 517, 111 P.3d 1162 (2005), a police officer stopped the defendant for driving with a defective taillight. Id. at 520. The officer discovered the defendant's license was suspended and immediately arrested him. Id. While searching the car, the officer found methamphetamine. The defendant was later convicted of methamphetamine possession. Id.
The defendant appealed his conviction, arguing both the arrest and the search were unlawful. Id. at 523. He claimed the officer acted improperly because he did not exercise discretion before making the arrest. Id. The court held officers may initially arrest a person for driving with a suspended license and then, after investigation, exercise discretion in deciding to either retain custody or cite and release. Id. at 526. The court, however, found the officer there was not required to exercise such discretion after discovery of the methamphetamine, possession of which is a felony. Id. at 527.
Here, Trooper Blood had the authority to arrest Mr. Wasankari for driving with a suspended license. RCW 10.31.100(3)(e). During the investigation, the trooper discovered evidence of methamphetamine. At this point, Trooper Blood was no longer required to exercise his discretion and release Mr. Wasankari. Pulfrey, 154 Wn.2d at 527. The court did not err by finding that the arrest and search were lawful. The evidence of methamphetamine was accordingly admissible.
Affirmed.
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.
SWEENEY, C.J. and BROWN, J., concur.