Mainsail
Member
The state loses this one:
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 24861-5-III
)
Appellant, )
) Division Three
v. )
)
CARLA RAE VELTRI, ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
Respondent. )
)
BROWN, J. -- Today, the State appeals the trial court's suppression order in its
prosecution of Carla Veltri for possessing methamphetamine with the intent to deliver.
Because the facts found by the trial court support its legal conclusion that an
unwarranted general search occurred, we affirm.
FACTS
The facts are drawn from the court's findings. Officer Allen Edwards noticed a
truck with mismatched license plates and decided to investigate to see if it was stolen.
He saw the driver lawfully park and get out with two passengers. One passenger ran,
and although Officer Edwards followed, he got away. When Officer Edwards returned
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
to the truck, he saw the driver and the other passenger walking away. He contacted
the driver and identified her as Carla Veltri. The other passenger was arrested on a
warrant, but the later questioning and search of the truck was not incident to that arrest.
Officer Edwards asked Ms. Veltri if she owned the truck. At first Ms. Veltri said
she did not, and later explained she had borrowed it. Ms. Veltri possessed solely a
Washington identity card and she did not have the vehicle registration or proof of
insurance. Officer Edwards learned the rear license plate belonged to the vehicle. The
truck had not been reported stolen. Officer Edwards turned his attention elsewhere
after he decided not to issue an infraction.
Officer Edwards decided Ms. Veltri was not free to leave because he wanted to
search further for "possible contraband or weapons" even though he knew "the vehicle
had not been reported stolen." Clerk's Papers at 71, 72. Without advising her of her
consent rights, Officer Edwards asked Ms. Veltri if he could look inside the truck. Ms.
Veltri did not care, and nothing suspicious was found. Officer Edwards then asked Ms.
Veltri for permission to search two suitcases in the truck bed. Ms. Veltri told Officer
Edwards the suitcases were not hers and she did not care if he searched them.
Controlled substance contraband was found in one suitcase.
Officer Edwards arrested Ms. Veltri. The State charged her with possessing a
controlled substance, methamphetamine, with intent to deliver. Ms. Veltri successfully
moved to suppress the evidence over the State's argument that the suitcases were
2
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
abandoned. The court concluded the officer's search exceeded the scope of the initial
stop and Ms. Veltri's consent was involuntary. After suppressing the evidence, the
court dismissed the case. The State appealed.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether, considering the State's abandonment theory, the trial court
erred in suppressing the evidence seized in the warrantless suitcase search.
We review a trial court's findings of fact in a motion to suppress for substantial
evidence. State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999). Unchallenged
findings of fact are verities on appeal. State v. Acrey, 148 Wn.2d 738, 745, 64 P.3d
594 (2003). We review a trial court's conclusions of law de novo. Id. The court's
conclusions of law must be supported by its findings of fact. State v. Dodson, 110 Wn.
App. 112, 123, 39 P.3d 324 (2002). Unargued assignments of error in an opening brief
are deemed abandoned. Fosbre v. State, 70 Wn.2d 578, 583, 424 P.2d 901 (1967).
The State relies on State v. Evans, 129 Wn. App. 211, 224, 118 P.3d 419,
review granted, 157 Wn.2d 1001, 136 P.3d 758 (2006), for the proposition that an
individual's denial of ownership of a specific item in response to police questioning is
an abandonment and waiver of any privacy rights in that property. On the other hand,
police questioning must fall within the scope of the circumstances that initially justify an
interference or detention. State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d 1, 15-16, 948 P.2d 1280
(1997).
3
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
If a traffic stop is initially justified, the detention length and scope must be
reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. RCW 46.61.021(2); State
v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1, 4, 726 P.2d 445 (1986); State v. Tijerina, 61 Wn. App. 626,
628-29, 811 P.2d 241 (1991). Once the initial stop purpose is accomplished, any
further detention must be based on "'articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity.'" Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 15-16 (quoting State v. Cantrell,
70 Wn. App. 340, 344, 853 P.2d 479 (1993)). In other words, "police officers may not
use routine traffic stops as a basis for generalized, investigative detentions or
searches." State v. Henry, 80 Wn. App. 544, 553, 910 P.2d 1290 (1995).
Here, the trial court found Officer Edwards stopped Ms. Veltri to investigate the
mismatched license plates and a possibly stolen truck. The rear license plate was
valid. The truck was not reported stolen. Officer Edwards decided not to issue an
infraction. The stop was extended by securing uninformed consent to search the truck-
cab, where nothing suspicious was found, and later, two suitcases in the truck-bed.
Ms. Veltri denied suitcase ownership and declared her lack of care about the extended
searches. From this, the court concluded Officer Edwards switched his investigatory
focus to looking for contraband and weapons.
First, the State argued solely abandonment in its opening brief, not mentioning
its other assignments of error. Thus, we do not analyze the State's other assignments
of error. Fosbre, 70 Wn.2d at 583. Even so, given the facts, substantial evidence
4
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
supports the court's findings. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 214.
Second, our focus is whether the facts support the trial court's conclusions.
Officer Edwards dispelled his stolen truck suspicions and decided not to issue an
infraction, resolving the initial stop purposes. See Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 13, 15-16;
Henry, 80 Wn. App. at 550. Given the trial court's findings, it correctly concluded
Officer Edwards lacked further reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 13, 15-16. Thus, the trial court correctly decided an
impermissible general exploratory search occurred. Id.; Henry, 80 Wn. App. at 550-53.
Therefore, abandonment is not the issue; the continued detention, questioning, and
search were unlawful. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 15-16; Henry, 80 Wn. App. at 550-53.
Moreover, our Supreme Court has decided State v. Evans, No. 77700-4, 2007 Wash.
LEXIS 50 at *15-16 (Jan. 11, 2007), since argument of this case, rejecting the State's
abandonment argument.
Affirmed.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, No. 24861-5-III
)
Appellant, )
) Division Three
v. )
)
CARLA RAE VELTRI, ) PUBLISHED OPINION
)
Respondent. )
)
BROWN, J. -- Today, the State appeals the trial court's suppression order in its
prosecution of Carla Veltri for possessing methamphetamine with the intent to deliver.
Because the facts found by the trial court support its legal conclusion that an
unwarranted general search occurred, we affirm.
FACTS
The facts are drawn from the court's findings. Officer Allen Edwards noticed a
truck with mismatched license plates and decided to investigate to see if it was stolen.
He saw the driver lawfully park and get out with two passengers. One passenger ran,
and although Officer Edwards followed, he got away. When Officer Edwards returned
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
to the truck, he saw the driver and the other passenger walking away. He contacted
the driver and identified her as Carla Veltri. The other passenger was arrested on a
warrant, but the later questioning and search of the truck was not incident to that arrest.
Officer Edwards asked Ms. Veltri if she owned the truck. At first Ms. Veltri said
she did not, and later explained she had borrowed it. Ms. Veltri possessed solely a
Washington identity card and she did not have the vehicle registration or proof of
insurance. Officer Edwards learned the rear license plate belonged to the vehicle. The
truck had not been reported stolen. Officer Edwards turned his attention elsewhere
after he decided not to issue an infraction.
Officer Edwards decided Ms. Veltri was not free to leave because he wanted to
search further for "possible contraband or weapons" even though he knew "the vehicle
had not been reported stolen." Clerk's Papers at 71, 72. Without advising her of her
consent rights, Officer Edwards asked Ms. Veltri if he could look inside the truck. Ms.
Veltri did not care, and nothing suspicious was found. Officer Edwards then asked Ms.
Veltri for permission to search two suitcases in the truck bed. Ms. Veltri told Officer
Edwards the suitcases were not hers and she did not care if he searched them.
Controlled substance contraband was found in one suitcase.
Officer Edwards arrested Ms. Veltri. The State charged her with possessing a
controlled substance, methamphetamine, with intent to deliver. Ms. Veltri successfully
moved to suppress the evidence over the State's argument that the suitcases were
2
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
abandoned. The court concluded the officer's search exceeded the scope of the initial
stop and Ms. Veltri's consent was involuntary. After suppressing the evidence, the
court dismissed the case. The State appealed.
ANALYSIS
The issue is whether, considering the State's abandonment theory, the trial court
erred in suppressing the evidence seized in the warrantless suitcase search.
We review a trial court's findings of fact in a motion to suppress for substantial
evidence. State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208, 214, 970 P.2d 722 (1999). Unchallenged
findings of fact are verities on appeal. State v. Acrey, 148 Wn.2d 738, 745, 64 P.3d
594 (2003). We review a trial court's conclusions of law de novo. Id. The court's
conclusions of law must be supported by its findings of fact. State v. Dodson, 110 Wn.
App. 112, 123, 39 P.3d 324 (2002). Unargued assignments of error in an opening brief
are deemed abandoned. Fosbre v. State, 70 Wn.2d 578, 583, 424 P.2d 901 (1967).
The State relies on State v. Evans, 129 Wn. App. 211, 224, 118 P.3d 419,
review granted, 157 Wn.2d 1001, 136 P.3d 758 (2006), for the proposition that an
individual's denial of ownership of a specific item in response to police questioning is
an abandonment and waiver of any privacy rights in that property. On the other hand,
police questioning must fall within the scope of the circumstances that initially justify an
interference or detention. State v. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d 1, 15-16, 948 P.2d 1280
(1997).
3
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
If a traffic stop is initially justified, the detention length and scope must be
reasonably related to the circumstances justifying the stop. RCW 46.61.021(2); State
v. Kennedy, 107 Wn.2d 1, 4, 726 P.2d 445 (1986); State v. Tijerina, 61 Wn. App. 626,
628-29, 811 P.2d 241 (1991). Once the initial stop purpose is accomplished, any
further detention must be based on "'articulable facts giving rise to a reasonable
suspicion of criminal activity.'" Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 15-16 (quoting State v. Cantrell,
70 Wn. App. 340, 344, 853 P.2d 479 (1993)). In other words, "police officers may not
use routine traffic stops as a basis for generalized, investigative detentions or
searches." State v. Henry, 80 Wn. App. 544, 553, 910 P.2d 1290 (1995).
Here, the trial court found Officer Edwards stopped Ms. Veltri to investigate the
mismatched license plates and a possibly stolen truck. The rear license plate was
valid. The truck was not reported stolen. Officer Edwards decided not to issue an
infraction. The stop was extended by securing uninformed consent to search the truck-
cab, where nothing suspicious was found, and later, two suitcases in the truck-bed.
Ms. Veltri denied suitcase ownership and declared her lack of care about the extended
searches. From this, the court concluded Officer Edwards switched his investigatory
focus to looking for contraband and weapons.
First, the State argued solely abandonment in its opening brief, not mentioning
its other assignments of error. Thus, we do not analyze the State's other assignments
of error. Fosbre, 70 Wn.2d at 583. Even so, given the facts, substantial evidence
4
No. 24861-5-III
State v. Veltri
supports the court's findings. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d at 214.
Second, our focus is whether the facts support the trial court's conclusions.
Officer Edwards dispelled his stolen truck suspicions and decided not to issue an
infraction, resolving the initial stop purposes. See Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 13, 15-16;
Henry, 80 Wn. App. at 550. Given the trial court's findings, it correctly concluded
Officer Edwards lacked further reasonable articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 13, 15-16. Thus, the trial court correctly decided an
impermissible general exploratory search occurred. Id.; Henry, 80 Wn. App. at 550-53.
Therefore, abandonment is not the issue; the continued detention, questioning, and
search were unlawful. Armenta, 134 Wn.2d at 15-16; Henry, 80 Wn. App. at 550-53.
Moreover, our Supreme Court has decided State v. Evans, No. 77700-4, 2007 Wash.
LEXIS 50 at *15-16 (Jan. 11, 2007), since argument of this case, rejecting the State's
abandonment argument.
Affirmed.
