 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Eggleston9/14/2001
be present in any part of the house, nor does it resurrect any expectation of privacy by the defendant.
3. The right of police to be present in any part of the house pursuant to the search warrant is not limited to members of the initial entry team. Following the shooting of Officer Bananola, the five entry officers . . . were lawfully present at all locations in the house pursuant to the search warrant and pursuant to their right to secure the house following the shooting. The three investigating officers identified in Finding of Fact No. 6 were lawfully present pursuant to the warrant. Each officer had the right to seize items that they immediately recognized as evidence important to the investigation of the shooting of Officer Bananola. All of the items identified in Findings of Fact 3, 4, and 7 were observed inadvertently within the meaning of the plain view doctrine, which permits close observation and attuned senses. All of the items identified in Findings of Fact No. 3, 4, and 7 were lawfully seized pursuant to the plain view doctrine.
4. Although items 50, 51, 54, 55, 56 and 57 were not directly in the view of the three investigating officers, evidence of the presence of such items was clearly and directly evident to the officers from their lawful vantage points within the house. In each case, based upon evidence plainly in their view, the officers deduced that the item to be seized was within the wall, dresser or television set. In such circumstances, removal of a portion of the wall, the dresser drawer or the television screen was not a search. Rather it was an act reasonably necessary to effectuate seizure of an item whose presence was deduced from evidence plainly in view of the officers without a search. The plain view doctrine's requirement of inadvertent discovery prohibits 'further unreasonable steps to find the contraband.' State v. Myers, 117 Wn.2d 332, 347 {815 P.2d 761} (1991). Where the evidence in plain view is of the character present here, a seizure of evidence following a certain deduction by experienced police officers does not violate that prohibition.
6. Seizure of the items identified in Findings of Fact No. 3, 4, 7, and 9 through 13 meet{s} all the requirements of the inevitable discovery rule.
7. Defendant's constitutional right to protection from unreasonable seizure has not been violated by seizure of the items identified in Findings of Fact No. 3, 4, 7, and 9 through 13. The motion to suppress is denied to those items. There is no evidence to explain or justify seizure {of} items 45, 46 and 58. The motion to suppress is granted as to those items. 1 CP at 1354-59.
During a pretrial hearing, Deputy Martin Kapsh said that he and Reding reentered after the shooting, found Bananola on the floor, and turned him over to start CPR. Kapsh saw a bullet and shell casing underneath Bananola with Bananola's gun beside his body. Reding saw the same bullet and casing. Fajardo testified that upon re-entry, she saw a man on the couch and Bananola on the floor and went beyond the kitchen and into the living room/dining area to clear some doorways and a closet. She saw Bananola's gun extending out from his left hand and a shell casing between Bananola and the wall. She added that Reding covered the hallway while she cleared the doorways. Jeff Reigle testified that upon re-entry, he turned into the hallway toward the bedrooms and ended up at the bathroom entrance, where he found Eggleston and his mother. He saw a handgun by Eggleston's knee and kicked it toward the bathroom. He also saw a shell casing. Reigle stated that Dogeagle ended up clearing the rest of the house, which included the bathroom and two bedrooms. When Reigle left, he had blo
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|