pretrial suppression hearing in Washington

2012In Kurtz , the trial court ordered the closure of a pretrial suppression hearing and the temporary sealing of the suppression hearing file in order to prevent publicity that would have jeopardized the defendant’s article I, section 22 right to an impartial jury. 94 Wn.2d at 53 .

1995In Federated Publications, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d 51 , 615 P.2d 440 (1980), the court reviewed the decision to close a pretrial suppression hearing.

2014See Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 256-62 (criminal defendant’s right to public trial under article I, section 22 of Washington Constitution requires that the trial court, before closing a pretrial suppression hearing, follow five criteria under Ishikawa and its progeny; failure to do so in case of record lacking any consideration of defendant’s public trial rights results in presumption of prejudice and remand for new trial); State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 514-18 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (criminal defendant’s public trial rights under article I, section 22 of Washington Constitution and Sixth Amend

2014Jan. 1, 1985).12 The 9 See Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 256-62 (criminal defendant's right to public trial under article I, section 22 of Washington Constitution requires that the trial court, before closing a pretrial suppression hearing, follow five criteria under Ishikawa and its progeny; failure to do so in case of record lacking any consideration of defendant's public trial rights, results in presumption of prejudice and remand for new trial), State v. Briahtman. 155 Wn.2d 506, 514-18 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (criminal defendant's public trial rights under article I, section 22 of Washington Cons

2014See Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 256-62 (criminal defendant’s right to public trial under article I, section 22 of Washington Constitution requires that the trial court, before closing a pretrial suppression hearing, follow five criteria under Ishikawa and its progeny; failure to do so in case of record lacking any consideration of defendant’s public trial rights results in presumption of prejudice and remand for new trial); State v. Brightman, 155 Wn.2d 506, 514-18 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (criminal defendant’s public trial rights under article I, section 22 of Washington Constitution and Sixth Amend

2014Jan. 1, 1985).12 The 9 See Bone-Club, 128 Wn.2d at 256-62 (criminal defendant's right to public trial under article I, section 22 of Washington Constitution requires that the trial court, before closing a pretrial suppression hearing, follow five criteria under Ishikawa and its progeny; failure to do so in case of record lacking any consideration of defendant's public trial rights, results in presumption of prejudice and remand for new trial), State v. Briahtman. 155 Wn.2d 506, 514-18 , 122 P.3d 150 (2005) (criminal defendant's public trial rights under article I, section 22 of Washington Cons

2010Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-54 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 .

2010Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-54 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 .

2010The trial court, citing this court’s decision in State v. Brown, 154 Wn.2d 787 , 117 P.3d 336 (2005), granted Afana’s motion and dismissed the case, concluding that the practical effect of the suppression order was to terminate the State’s case. 3 The State then appealed.

2010The trial court, citing this court's decision in State v. Brown, 154 Wash.2d 787 , 117 P.3d 336 (2005), granted Afana's motion and dismissed the case, concluding that the practical effect of the suppression order was to terminate the *882 State's case. [3] The State then appealed.

2010The trial court, citing this court’s decision in State v. Brown, 154 Wn.2d 787 , 117 P.3d 336 (2005), granted Afana’s motion and dismissed the case, concluding that the practical effect of the suppression order was to terminate the State’s case. 3 The State then appealed.

2010The trial court, citing this court's decision in State v. Brown, 154 Wash.2d 787 , 117 P.3d 336 (2005), granted Afana's motion and dismissed the case, concluding that the practical effect of the suppression order was to terminate the *882 State's case. [3] The State then appealed.

2008App. 613, 614-15 , 754 P.2d 1037 (1988) (if the superior court substitutes its judgment for the district court, it exceeds its limited scope of review). ¶26 Even if the correct standard of review of the decision under RALJ 5.4 is abuse of discretion, Osman contends the district court’s determination that the missing portion of the pretrial suppression hearing is not significant or material was an abuse of discretion.

2008Glaefke v. Reichow, 51 Wash.App. 613, 614-15 , 754 P.2d 1037 (1988) (if the superior court substitutes its judgment for the district court, it exceeds its limited scope of review). ¶ 26 Even if the correct standard of review of the decision under RALJ 5.4 is abuse of discretion, Osman contends the district court's determination that the missing portion of the pretrial suppression hearing is not significant or material was an abuse of discretion.

2005The order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose.” Id. at 258-59 (alteration in original) (quoting Allied Daily Newspapers v. Eikenberry, 121 Wn.2d 205, 210-11 , 848 P.2d 1258 (1993)). 5 ¶16 While the Bone-Club court addressed the complete closure of the courtroom for a pretrial suppression hearing, not jury selection, it is well settled that the right to a public trial also extends to jury selection.

2005The order must be no broader in its application or duration than necessary to serve its purpose.” Id. at 258-59 (alteration in original) (quoting Allied Daily Newspapers v. Eikenberry, 121 Wn.2d 205, 210-11 , 848 P.2d 1258 (1993)). 5 ¶16 While the Bone-Club court addressed the complete closure of the courtroom for a pretrial suppression hearing, not jury selection, it is well settled that the right to a public trial also extends to jury selection.

2005Orange, 152 Wn.2d at 804 (citing Press-Enter.

2005Orange, 152 Wash.2d at 804 , 100 P.3d 291 (citing Press-Enter.

2000Indeed, our recognition of a surveillance location privilege is built upon the established informer’s privilege, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S. Ct. 623 , 1 L.

2000Indeed, our recognition of a surveillance location privilege is built upon the established informer’s privilege, Roviaro v. United States, 353 U.S. 53 , 77 S. Ct. 623 , 1 L.

2024“For purposes of determining whether the statements were admissible, the facts are limited to those presented at the admissibility hearing.”6 Id. at 729 n.8. 6 At the pretrial suppression hearing, both parties provided a full, unredacted transcript of the 911 recording.

2013At a pretrial suppression hearing, Byrd successfully argued that the “search of her purse violated Gant” and that “the search incident to arrest exception did not authorize the warrantless search of [her] purse.” Byrd, 162 Wn.

2013I, § 10 challenge in Federated Publication, Inc. v. Kurtz, 94 Wn.2d 17 This provision was r~ferred to as the "tenth amendment" in Collins. 50 Wn.2d at 745 .

2012The Court recently reminded us, though, that “[t]he extent to which the First and Sixth Amendment public trial rights are coextensive is an open question.” Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213 , 130 S. Ct. 721 , 175 L.

2012The Court recently reminded us, though, that “[t]he extent to which the First and Sixth Amendment public trial rights are coextensive is an open question.” Presley v. Georgia, 558 U.S. 209, 213 , 130 S. Ct. 721 , 175 L.

2012No. 66202-3-1/8 as noted above, the supreme court has squarely placed the burden on petitioners to satisfy the experience and logic test.34 We affirm the judgment and sentence. £&%k J~ WE CONCUR: lk\ v 34 See Sublett, 176 Wn.2d at 75, 78 ; In re Yates, 177 Wn.2d at 29 . 8

2008The trial court did not make a finding of fact about whether Slyter kept Zimmer's driver's license after requesting to see identification. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] The record provides no further information about why the Camus City police department believed it had probable cause to arrest Zimmer.

2008The trial court did not make a finding of fact about whether Slyter kept Zimmer's driver's license after requesting to see identification. [3] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 , 86 S.Ct. 1602 , 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). [4] The record provides no further information about why the Camus City police department believed it had probable cause to arrest Zimmer.

2005Orange, 152 Wash.2d at 804 , 100 P.3d 291 (citing Press-Enter.

1993That is, it addressed the question of whether circumstances of the identification were such as to give "rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384.Accord, State v. Vaughn, 101 Wn.2d 604, 608 , 682 P.2d 878 (1984); State v. Hendrix, 50 Wn.

1993That is, it addressed the question of whether circumstances of the identification were such as to give "rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384.Accord, State v. Vaughn, 101 Wn.2d 604, 608 , 682 P.2d 878 (1984); State v. Hendrix, 50 Wn.

1993That is, it addressed the question of whether circumstances of the identification were such as to give "rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification." Simmons, 390 U.S. at 384.Accord, State v. Vaughn, 101 Wn.2d 604, 608 , 682 P.2d 878 (1984); State v. Hendrix, 50 Wn.