IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, • c..1 DIVISION ONE 4::::, --1=.• Appellant, mc pi c::, No. 77720-3-I =,• V. t v.-- PUBLISHED OPINION 3> -Tort cdnrn,-, LOUIS EARL JOHNSON JR., x"' 42 'aicil Respondent. FILED: May 6, 2019 ,..... r...,.....",• 0.4-0 DWYER, J. — Our society and the law that reflects its organizing principles assume that citizens will trust law enforcement and believe the things that police officers tell them. For instance, when a police officer enters a schoolhouse and announces that an active shooter is nearby, society desires that those so informed believe the officer and act accordingly. Similarly, when a homeowner is awakened in the night by a police officer at the front door who announces that a wildfire is fast approaching, society desires that the officer be believed and that the homeowner acts accordingly. Indeed, examples of this societal desire seem endless. Nevertheless, case law makes clear that a police officer, in the course of investigating criminality, does not violate either the federal or state constitution by lying to a potential suspect or witness. The need to sometimes do so has been repeatedly accommodated by the courts. But when police officers do choose to lie, they must recognize and accept the logical consequences of that decision. One such consequence arises in the context of constitutional seizure No. 77720-3-1/2 analysis. This jurisprudence provides that, in a police-citizen encounter, no seizure of the person occurs unless—objectively viewed and under the totality of the circumstances—a reasonable person would not believe that he or she was free to terminate the encounter or decline the officer's requests. In analyzing the circumstances of such an encounter, a reasonable person is an innocent person. And reasonable innocent persons may be assumed to believe the truth of that _ which the police tell them. In this case, Louis Johnson Jr. was found to be in unlawful possession of a firearm. Prior to that discovery, however, the police encounter with him had reached the point where—under the totality of the circumstances and objectively viewed—he had been seized. And, at the time of his seizure, the police lacked a lawful basis to seize him. Thus, the trial court properly granted his motion to suppress evidence of the gun found in his possession. We affirm. I Two Lynnwood police officers, Zach Yates and James George, were engaged in a proactive patrol late at night in an area known to have a high rate of criminal activity. The officers observed a silver vehicle enter a motel parking lot and park in a stall. After the vehicle came to rest, about a minute and a half passed without any person entering or leaving the vehicle. The officers became suspicious that its occupants were using drugs. The officers, both of whom were armed and in uniform, approached the vehicle on foot and stood on opposite sides adjacent to the driver's and passenger's doors. They shined flashlights into the vehicle's interior to enable 2 ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals