time of arrest rule in Washington

2020Our Supreme Court cautioned that the proper scope of the time of arrest rule “does not extend to all articles in an arrestee’s constructive possession, but only those personal articles in the arrestee’s actual and exclusive possession at or immediately preceding the time of arrest.” Byrd, 178 Wn.2d at 623 .

2019In Byrd, our Supreme Court explained that whether an item is part of the arrestee’s person is determined by applying the time-of-arrest rule, which turns on whether the arrestee had “actual and exclusive possession at or immediately preceding the time of arrest.” Byrd, 178 Wn.2d at 62 1-23.

2013In United States v. Graham, 638 F.2d 1111, 1114 (7th Cir. 1981), the court explained that "[t]he human anatomy does not naturally contain external pockets, pouches, or other places in which personal objects can be conveniently carried." When police take an arrestee into custody, they also take possession of his clothing and personal effects, any of which could contain weapons and evidence.

2013In United States v. Graham, 638 F.2d 1111, 1114 (7th Cir. 1981), the court explained that “[t]he human anatomy does not naturally contain external pockets, pouches, or other places in which personal objects can be conveniently carried.” When police take an arrestee into custody, they also take possession of his clothing and personal effects, any of which could contain weapons and evidence.

2019The trial court’s attempt to expand a “narrow” exception to the warrant requirement—instead of jealously guarding it—was error. ~ Byrd, 178 Wn.2d at 623 (“We caution that the proper scope of the time of arrest rule is narrow, in keeping with this ‘jealously guarded’ exception to the warrant requirement.”) (quoting Bravo Ortecia, 177 Wn.2d at 122 ).

2015Id. at 154, 159. ¶35 In addition to misunderstanding the presumption approved in Robinson , this holding is contrary to two principles governing the search incident to arrest exception. ¶36 The first principle is that “the proper scope of the time of arrest rule is narrow ... [because a search incident to arrest is a] ‘jealously guarded’ exception to the warrant requirement.” Byrd, 178 Wn.2d at 623 (emphasis added) (citing Bravo Ortega, 177 Wn.2d at 122 ).

2019Fewer than six months after deciding Byrd, our Supreme Court again applied the time-of-arrest rule in State v. MacDicken, 179 Wn.2d 936 , 319 P.3d 31 (2014).

2019Fewer than six months after deciding Byrd, our Supreme Court again applied the time-of-arrest rule in State v. MacDicken, 179 Wn.2d 936 , 319 P.3d 31 (2014).

2020App. 253, 261 , 716 P.2d 948 (1986). 29See State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995) (“The burden is on a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to show deficient representation based on the record established in the proceedings below.”). 30 Id. at 336-37 . 9 No. 81830-9-I/10 immediately preceding the time of arrest,”31 we should consider alternative theories.

2020App. 253, 261 , 716 P.2d 948 (1986). 29See State v. McFarland, 127 Wn.2d 322, 335 , 899 P.2d 1251 (1995) (“The burden is on a defendant alleging ineffective assistance of counsel to show deficient representation based on the record established in the proceedings below.”). 30 Id. at 336-37 . 9 No. 81830-9-I/10 immediately preceding the time of arrest,”31 we should consider alternative theories.

2019For the same reasons, Castorena's attempt to distinguish Brock on the basis that Castorena was not carrying the 9 backpack at any time during his interaction with officers is also unpersuasive.3 Castorena next contends that validating the search in this case would result in an impermissible untethering of the time-of-arrest rule from evidence preservation and officer safety, the two rationales that the United States Supreme Court articulated in Chime! v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S. Ct. 2034 , 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969), as justifying the search incident to arrest exception.

2019For the same reasons, Castorena's attempt to distinguish Brock on the basis that Castorena was not carrying the 9 backpack at any time during his interaction with officers is also unpersuasive.3 Castorena next contends that validating the search in this case would result in an impermissible untethering of the time-of-arrest rule from evidence preservation and officer safety, the two rationales that the United States Supreme Court articulated in Chime! v. California, 395 U.S. 752 , 89 S. Ct. 2034 , 23 L. Ed. 2d 685 (1969), as justifying the search incident to arrest exception.