|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
41844-4 |
| Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Charles N. W. Godwin, Appellant |
| File Date: |
05/15/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from Thurston Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 10-1-01605-1 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 02/11/2011 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable Lisa L Sutton |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | J. Robin Hunt |
| Concurring: | Marywave Van Deren |
| David H. Armstrong |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | Thomas Edward Doyle |
| | Attorney at Law |
| | Po Box 510 |
| | Hansville, WA, 98340-0510 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Carol L. La Verne |
| | Thurston County Prosecutor's Office |
| | 2000 Lakeridge Dr Sw Bldg 2 |
| | Olympia, WA, 98502-6045 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 41844-4-II
Respondent,
v.
CHARLES NIKOLAUS GODWIN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
Hunt, J. -- Charles Nikolaus Godwin appeals his jury trial forgery conviction. He argues
that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence. We affirm.
FACTS
After discovering Charles Godwin in possession of counterfeit currency, the State charged
him with forgery. He moved to suppress that currency, contending that law enforcement officers
had seized it without a warrant. The trial court denied his motion and entered the following
pertinent undisputed findings of fact:
2. Officer McClanahan directed [a speed measuring] device at a silver
Honda . . . and obtained a reading of 51 miles per hour in a 35 m.p.h. speed zone.
He motioned the Honda to pull over. In response, the car initially slowed down
but then sped off. McClanahan could see that the car was full, containing at least 4
people, and that the driver was a female.
3. Officer McClanahan . . . lost sight of the Honda for a moment and then
observed it at the intersection of Ruddell Road and 39th Street. The Honda was
stopped partially on the curb, the engine was running, the doors were wide open,
and there was no one in the vehicle. McClanahan observed two males running
north on Ruddell Road and requested assistance from other police officers.
4. While other officers came to assist, McClanahan got out of his vehicle
No. 41844-4-II
and stood by the Honda in order to watch for the female driver.
5. A few minutes [later], defendant Charles Godwin emerged from a
nearby wooded area and approached Officer McClanahan. Godwin stated that he
had previously been in the Honda and had run with the others, but had then
decided to come back because he had not done anything wrong. Godwin provided
his name and address and showed McClanahan a bank folder in his possession.
Godwin asked to be allowed back into the Honda to retrieve a car title, but
McClanahan refused to allow this.
6. Officer McClanahan was focused on maintaining a perimeter by the
Honda to look for the female driver. Dealing with Godwin was not conducive to
carrying out that responsibility. Therefore, when Godwin did not leave on his
own, McClanahan requested that Godwin leave the area, and Godwin did so.
. . . .
9. [Lieutenants] Mack and Ward [responded to McClanahan's call for
assistance and] searched a wooded area for the persons who had fled the Honda.
. . . .
11. After Mack and Ward walked out of the wooded area, they observed
the defendant about 45 yards away. When Mack initially noticed Godwin, the
defendant was kneeling down, appearing to have some sort of notebook open, and
was going through the contents.
12. As Mack and Ward approached the defendant's location, he stood up
and began walking toward them. At the same time, he was flipping through bills in
an open check book. Ward stated, "Hey, come here" and used his finger to motion
toward himself. As the officers walked up to the defendant, Ward identified Mack
and himself as Lacey police officers and asked to speak with the defendant.
Godwin was very cooperative in response.
13. The defendant was first asked for his name and he identified himself in
response. Next the defendant was asked where he was coming from and he
responded, "Pepper's car."
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 102-04.
The trial court's next finding of fact was disputed:
15. After the defendant stated that he had come from "Pepper's car", the
defendant was next asked about the check book he was holding. The defendant
responded that it was his and handed it over to Lieutenant Mack without having
been ordered to do so.
CP at 104. Thereafter, the trial court continued to enter the following pertinent undisputed
findings of fact:
16. Mack handed the check book over to Ward while Mack continued to
2
No. 41844-4-II
speak with the defendant. . . .
17. While Mack spoke with the defendant, Ward looked at the currency
inside the check book. He quickly realized that some of the bills were counterfeit.
Ward made that determination based upon the feel and colors of the bills and the
fact that the bills in each denomination had the same serial number.
CP at 105.
Based on these findings of fact, the trial court entered the following pertinent conclusions
of law:
3. Lacey Police Officer McClanahan's contact with the defendant on
October 18, 2010, did not constitute a seizure.
4. The contact Lacey Police Lieutenants Mack and Ward had with the
defendant on October 18, 2010, did not constitute a seizure until Lieutenant Ward
discovered the defendant was in possession of counterfeit money. Once that
discovery had been made, there was lawful authority for the seizure of the
defendant.
5. By spontaneously handing over the check book to Lieutenant Mack, the
defendant voluntarily consented to the officers examining the contents of that
check book.
CP at 107.
Godwin agreed to be tried on stipulated facts.1 The trial court found him guilty of forgery.
He appeals.2
ANALYSIS
Godwin argues that (1) he was "seized" when Lieutenants Ward and Mack confronted
him, they "seized" him;3 and (2) Lieutenant Ward's examination of the check book constituted an
1 Godwin assigns error to the trial court's Findings of Fact 8, 14, 15, 19, and 21. But he does not
argue that the evidence was insufficient to support these findings.
2 A commissioner of this court initially considered Godwin's appeal as a motion on the merits
under RAP 18.14 and then transferred it to a panel of judges.
3 Br. of Appellant at 16 (citing State v. Young, 135 Wn.2d 498, 512, 957 P.2d 681 (1998); United
States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 554-55, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497 (1980)).
3
No. 41844-4-II
illegal warrantless search. We disagree.
A person is seized by a law enforcement officer when the officer uses physical force or a
show of authority that would lead a reasonable person to believe, under the totality of the
circumstances, that he is not free to leave or to decline the officer's request. State v. O'Neill, 148
Wn.2d 564, 574, 62 P.3d 489 (2003) (citing State v. Young, 135 Wn.2d 498, 510, 957 P.2d 681
(1998)). The standard is "a purely objective one, looking to the actions of the law enforcement
officer." Young, 135 Wn.2d at 501. We review the trial court's finding of whether a seizure
occurred as a mixed question of law and fact. State v. Thorn, 129 Wn.2d 347, 351, 917 P.2d 108
(1996), overruled on other grounds by O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d at 571.
Godwin relies on State v. Gleason, 70 Wn. App. 13, 17, 851 P.2d 731 (1993), in which
Division Three of our court concluded that Gleason had been seized when an officer approached
and asked to talk to him, asked why he was there, and demanded identification. Unlike Gleason,
no officer first approached or demanded identification from Godwin;4 on the contrary, it was
Godwin who initiated both the first and the second contacts with law enforcement. Godwin
initially emerged from the woods and, of his own volition, approached Officer McClanahan
(standing next to the Honda), provided his name and address, and showed Officer McClanahan a
bank folder in his possession. Focusing on trying to locate the female driver, Officer McClanahan
asked Godwin to leave; initially Godwin complied, and the first contact ended.
Later, however, Lieutenants Mack and Ward noticed that Godwin had returned to the area
near the Honda; he was kneeling down, apparently going through a notebook. As the officers
approached, Godwin stood up and began walking toward them, while flipping through bills in an
4 Gleason, 70 Wn. App. at 17.
4
No. 41844-4-II
open check book. Although Lieutenant Mack asked Godwin to approach and asked for his name,
Lieutenant Mack did not demand that Godwin provide identification or hand over the check book.
As was the case with the first contact, during this second contact, Lieutenants Mack and Ward's
manner was not aggressive or threatening such that a reasonable person would have believed he
was not free to leave or to decline the officer's request. O'Neill, 148 Wn.2d at 574.
We hold, therefore, that the trial court did not err (1) in concluding that Lieutenants Mack
and Ward had not seized Godwin when he voluntarily handed the check book to Lieutenant
Mack; (2) in concluding that Lieutenant Ward's subsequent examination of the check book was
not an illegal warrantless search; and (3) in denying Godwin's motion to suppress the counterfeit
bills found in the check book.
We affirm.
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 in accordance with RCW 2.06.040, it
is so ordered.
Hunt, J.
We concur:
Armstrong, P.J.
Van Deren, J.
5
|