|
DO NOT CITE. SEE GR 14.1(a).
Court of Appeals Division II
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
| Docket Number: |
41705-7 |
| Title of Case: |
State Of Washington, Respondent V. Kathryn Loran, Appellant |
| File Date: |
05/10/2012 |
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
| Appeal from Clallam Superior Court |
| Docket No: | 10-1-00214-5 |
| Judgment or order under review |
| Date filed: | 01/19/2011 |
| Judge signing: | Honorable Kenneth Day Williams |
JUDGES
------
| Authored by | Jill M Johanson |
| Concurring: | J. Robin Hunt |
| Joel Penoyar |
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s) |
| | Jordan Broome Mccabe |
| | McCabe Law Office |
| | Po Box 46668 |
| | Seattle, WA, 98146-0668 |
Counsel for Respondent(s) |
| | Brian Patrick Wendt |
| | Clallam County Prosecuting Attorney's Of |
| | 223 E 4th St Ste 11 |
| | Port Angeles, WA, 98362-3015 |
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION II
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 41705-7-II
Respondent,
v.
KATHRYN A. LORAN, UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appellant.
Johanson, J. -- Kathryn A. Loran appeals her unlawful possession of a controlled
substance conviction, arguing that (1) the probationer warrant exception is inapplicable to her
deferred disposition status and (2) the State lacked probable cause to search her home. We
reverse Loran's conviction because the deferred disposition order failed to comply with RCW
13.40.127 by omitting to place her on community supervision and thus the probationer warrant
exception did not apply to her.
FACTS
In December 2009, the Clallam County juvenile court granted a deferred disposition to
Kathryn Loran. Notably, the deferred disposition order failed to place her on "community
supervision" or under any other form of supervision by a probation officer. The disposition order
did, however, provide several standard conditions including that she refrain from committing new
offenses, regularly and timely report to her probation counselor, inform her probation counselor
of her telephone number and current address, notify her probation counselor before moving to a
No. 41705-7-II
different address, participate in a drug and alcohol dependency evaluation, comply with drug and
alcohol treatment, refrain from using illegal drugs and alcohol, and be subject to random urinalysis
and other drug testing. Joleen Goodrich, a juvenile probation counselor, was assigned to monitor
Loran's deferred disposition. In May 2010, based on alleged violations of the disposition order's
conditions, the juvenile court issued a warrant for Loran's arrest.
Goodrich asked the police to accompany her to serve Loran's arrest warrant. After doing
a protective sweep of the residence, Officer Andrew Heuett arrested Loran, read her her Miranda
rights,1 handcuffed her, and walked her to his patrol car, where he put her in the back seat.
Goodrich told Loran that she had been worried about her and asked Loran if she could give a
clean urinalysis sample. Loran replied, "No. I just did heroin within the last couple of days."
Transcript of Proceedings (TP) at 33. Goodrich decided that she should try to find the drugs
Loran had just admitted to taking because "it was part of [her] job." TP at 44. Goodrich went
into Loran's room, noticed the dresser with "girl . . . things" on top, and opened the first drawer,
finding a little box. TP at 43. Goodrich opened the box and saw pills inside. RP at 44. Officer
Benedict radioed news of Goodrich's discovery to Officer Heuett, who asked Loran about the
pills. Loran stated they were Vicodin and Percocet.
The State charged Loran with two counts of unlawful possession of a controlled substance
(oxycodone and methadone), contrary to RCW 69.50.4013(1). Loran moved to suppress the
pills, arguing that Goodrich's warrantless search was unlawful because the probation/parolee
warrant exception did not apply to her deferred disposition without conviction. Loran also
1 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966).
2
No. 41705-7-II
argued that Goodrich lacked reasonable suspicion. After asking for supplemental briefing, the
trial court denied Loran's suppression motion. The trial court concluded that the warrantless
search exception for probationers applies to a deferred disposition in juvenile court.
The State dismissed one of Loran's controlled substance possession counts (oxycodone).
Based on stipulated facts, the trial court convicted Loran of one count of unlawful possession of a
controlled substance (methadone). Loran appeals.
ANALYSIS
The Juvenile Justice Act of 1977 -- deferred disposition statute -- provides:
The adjudicatory hearing shall be limited to a reading of the court's record.
(4) Following the stipulation, acknowledgment, waiver, and entry of a
finding or plea of guilt, the court shall defer entry of an order of disposition of the
juvenile.
(5) Any juvenile granted a deferral of disposition under this section shall
be placed under community supervision. The court may impose any conditions of
supervision that it deems appropriate including posting a probation bond.
RCW 13.40.127 (emphasis added).
Loran appeals her unlawful possession of a controlled substance conviction, arguing that
(1) the probationer warrant exception is inapplicable to her deferred disposition status and (2) the
State lacked probable cause to search her home. The State's claim is that the warrantless search
was valid because Loran's deferred disposition status confers a diminished privacy expectation
while on community supervision. We find it fatal to the State's claim, however, that the order
here failed to place Loran on "community supervision" or any other form of supervision as
required by RCW 13.40.127(5) Thus, we do not reach the question of whether Loran had a
diminished privacy right in her home as a result of the deferred disposition.
3
No. 41705-7-II
Reversed.
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.
Johanson, J.
We concur:
Hunt, J.
Penoyar, C.J.
4
|