good faith exception in Washington

2009Mr. Kirwin contends, however, that the rule in DeFillippo cannot be applied because it was rejected in State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 , 640 P.2d 1061 (1982), where the court declined under article I, section 7 to adopt a good faith exception for arrests made under an unconstitutional statute.

2009Mr. Kirwin contends, however, that the rule in DeFillippo cannot be applied because it was rejected in State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92 , 640 P.2d 1061 (1982), where the court declined under article I, section 7 to adopt a good faith exception for arrests made under an unconstitutional statute.

2024Recognizing this distinction, our court has rejected any “good faith exception” as well as the speculative notion of “inevitable discovery.” See State v. Afana, 169 Wn.2d 169, 179-84 , 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d at 631-36 (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine).

2019State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 , 179-84, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620 , 631-36, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 717-22, 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (adopting the independent source doctrine).

2024Recognizing this distinction, our court has rejected any “good faith exception” as well as the speculative notion of “inevitable discovery.” See State v. Afana, 169 Wn.2d 169, 179-84 , 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); Winterstein, 167 Wn.2d at 631-36 (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine).

2019State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 , 179-84, 233 P.3d 879 (2010) (rejecting the good faith exception); State v. Winterstein, 167 Wash.2d 620 , 631-36, 220 P.3d 1226 (2009) (rejecting the inevitable discovery doctrine); State v. Gaines, 154 Wash.2d 711 , 717-22, 116 P.3d 993 (2005) (adopting the independent source doctrine).

2019App. 549, 559 , 676 P.2d 525 (1984) (Defendants who invaded victim's home and took stereo to secure return of purse and gun allegedly taken by victim were not entitled to instruction on good faith claim of title defense where there was no evidence to show stereo belonged to defendants.); State v. Hicks, 102 Wn.2d 182, 187 , 683 P.2d 186 (1984) (It was error for court not to give a good faith claim of title instruction where evidence was presented that defendant believed the cash he took from victim was the same cash missing from his room.).

2019App. 549, 559 , 676 P.2d 525 (1984) (Defendants who invaded victim's home and took stereo to secure return of purse and gun allegedly taken by victim were not entitled to instruction on good faith claim of title defense where there was no evidence to show stereo belonged to defendants.); State v. Hicks, 102 Wn.2d 182, 187 , 683 P.2d 186 (1984) (It was error for court not to give a good faith claim of title instruction where evidence was presented that defendant believed the cash he took from victim was the same cash missing from his room.).

2019State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85, 95-96 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995). 5 The parties also dispute whether the facts support a good faith claim of title instruction, including discussion of whether there was an implied mechanic’s lien that gave O’Hagan a claim of title.

2018This defense has “at least two elements: (1) an open and avowed taking of property and (2) a good faith claim of title to the property.” State v. Ager, 128 Wn.2d 85, 95 , 904 P.2d 715 (1995).

2019App. 549, 559 , 676 P.2d 525 (1984) (Defendants who invaded victim's home and took stereo to secure return of purse and gun allegedly taken by victim were not entitled to instruction on good faith claim of title defense where there was no evidence to show stereo belonged to defendants.); State v. Hicks, 102 Wn.2d 182, 187 , 683 P.2d 186 (1984) (It was error for court not to give a good faith claim of title instruction where evidence was presented that defendant believed the cash he took from victim was the same cash missing from his room.).

2019The defendants moved to instruct the jury on “the good faith claim of title defense to theft.” Brown, 36 Wn.

1984Defendant, relying on State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484 , 656 P.2d 1064 (1983), also argues that the good faith claim of title defense negates the intent element of robbery.

1984Defendant, relying on State v. McCullum, 98 Wn.2d 484 , 656 P.2d 1064 (1983), also argues that the good faith claim of title defense negates the intent element of robbery.

2009Unlike the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution, which focuses on “ ‘the reasonableness of the government action,’ ” article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution focuses on “ ‘the rights of the individual.’ ” State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wn.2d 628, 639 , 185 P.3d 580 (2008) (quoting Morse, 156 Wn.2d at 12 ).

2009Unlike the Fourth Amendment to the federal Constitution, which focuses on "the reasonableness of the government action," Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution focuses on "the rights of the individual." State v. Eisfeldt, 163 Wash.2d 628, 639 , 185 P.3d 580 (2008) (citing Morse, 156 Wash.2d at 12 , 123 P.3d 832 ).

2018The defendant argued he should be entitled to a good faith claim of title defense, but the court clearly stated that “the defense is not available in a trial for theft by deception.” Casey, 81 Wn.

2018Casey noted that the instruction is inappropriate in theft by deception cases because “a good faith claim of title would negate a specific element of the crime, namely deprivation ‘[b]y color or aid of deception.’” 81 Wn.

2009The court reasoned that to apply the good faith exception would "`violate[] the principle of treating similarly situated defendants the same' by allowing only one defendant to be the beneficiary of a newly announced rule." Gonzalez, 578 F.3d 1130, 1132 (quoting Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. at 322-23 , 107 S.Ct. 708 ).

2009The court reasoned that to apply the good faith exception would “ ‘violate! ] the principle of treating similarly situated defendants the same’ by allowing only one defendant to be the beneficiary of a newly announced rule.” Gonzalez, 578 F.3d at 1132 (alteration in original) (quoting Griffith, 479 U.S. at 322-23 ).

2019RCW 9A.56.020(2)(a); City of Seattle v. Shepherd, 93 Wn.2d 861, 868 , 613 P.2d 1158 (1980).

2019RCW 9A.56.020(2)(a); City of Seattle v. Shepherd, 93 Wn.2d 861, 868 , 613 P.2d 1158 (1980).

2019The court concluded 2 He did not win the election. 3 51572-5-II that, based on State v. Hawkins, 157 Wn.

2019State v. Hawkins, 157 Wn.

2018State v. Stanton, 68 Wn.

2017Stanton, 68 Wn.

2010Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 704 (extending good faith exception to nonsystemic police reliance on the negligent mistake of a fellow law enforcement officer); Evans, 514 U.S. at 14-16 (applying the good faith exception to police reliance on mistaken information in a court’s database); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 349-53 , 107 S. Ct. 1160 , 94 L.

2010Herring, 129 S. Ct. at 704 (extending good faith exception to nonsystemic police reliance on the negligent mistake of a fellow law enforcement officer); Evans, 514 U.S. at 14-16 (applying the good faith exception to police reliance on mistaken information in a court’s database); Illinois v. Krull, 480 U.S. 340, 349-53 , 107 S. Ct. 1160 , 94 L.

2010These same concerns militate against recognizing the existence of a good faith exception. ¶33 Accordingly, I believe this case to be controlled by our Supreme Court’s recent decisions in State v. Patton, 167 Wn.2d 379 , 219 P.3d 651 (2009), and State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009), which collectively mandate reversal of the judgment herein and suppression of the challenged evidence.

2010As we noted in State v. Valdez , not every search of a vehicle incident to arrest is proper, even under the law before Gant was filed. 137 Wash.App. 280 , 286-89, 152 P.3d 1048 (2007), aff'd, 167 Wash.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009).

2010These same concerns militate against recognizing the existence of a good faith exception. ¶33 Accordingly, I believe this case to be controlled by our Supreme Court’s recent decisions in State v. Patton, 167 Wn.2d 379 , 219 P.3d 651 (2009), and State v. Valdez, 167 Wn.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009), which collectively mandate reversal of the judgment herein and suppression of the challenged evidence.

2010As we noted in State v. Valdez , not every search of a vehicle incident to arrest is proper, even under the law before Gant was filed. 137 Wash.App. 280 , 286-89, 152 P.3d 1048 (2007), aff'd, 167 Wash.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009).

2010As we noted in State v. Valdez , not every search of a vehicle incident to arrest is proper, even under the law before Gant was filed. 137 Wash.App. 280 , 286-89, 152 P.3d 1048 (2007), aff'd, 167 Wash.2d 761 , 224 P.3d 751 (2009).

2010As we noted in State v. Valdez, not every search of a vehicle incident to arrest is proper, even under the law before Gant was filed. 137 Wn.

2010Moreover, Scalara's case was briefed and argued before Division 1 of our court filed its decision in State v. Riley, 154 Wash.App. 433 , 225 P.3d 462 (2010), in which it held that the good faith exception prevented the exclusion of evidence discovered in a search incident to arrest. [10] Accordingly, we need not address Scalara's remaining arguments, including those he raises in his SAG.

2010App. 433 , 225 P.3d 462 (2010), in which it held that the good faith exception prevented the exclusion of evidence discovered in a search incident to arrest.

2010The State relies heavily on a Division Two case, State v. Millan, 151 Wn.

2010We accept the State's concession at oral argument that under State v. Afana, 169 Wash.2d 169 , 233 P.3d 879 (2010), the good faith exception does not apply. [2] The State relies heavily on a Division II case, State v. Millan, 151 Wash.App. 492 , 212 P.3d 603 (2009), rev. granted, 168 Wash.2d 1005 , 226 P.3d 781 (2010), to argue that Roberts waived his right to challenge an illegal search under Gant for the first time on appeal, by failing to move to suppress the evidence at trial.