State Of Washington, Respondent V. Veniamin Petrovich Puris, Appellant
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) VENIAMIN PETROVICH PURIS, ) ) Appellant. ) _____________________________________ ) DIVISION ONE No. 61899-7-I UNPUBLISHED OPINION FILED: November 9, 2009 Dwyer, A.C.J. This case involves the legality of the search conducted incident to the arrest of Veniamin Puris. The State concedes that, pursuant to the decision in Arizona v. Gant, _____ U.S. _____, 129 S. Ct. 1710, 173 L. Ed. 2d 485 (2009), the search violated the Fourth Amendment. Nevertheless, the State contends that the judgment may still be affirmed because the good faith exception to the Fourth Amendment s exclusionary rule does not compel suppression of the evidence of Puris s guilt garnered in the search at issue. In the days since oral argument of this matter, the Washington Supreme Court announced that the Fourth Amendment principles applicable to searches incident to arrest discussed in Gant also apply when the legality of such a search is analyzed under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. State v. Patton, No. 80518-1, 2009 WL 3384578 (Oct. 22, 2009). Thus, the search at issue herein was conducted in No. 61899-7-I/2 contravention of the state constitution. Unlike its federal counterpart, there is no good faith exception to the article I, section 7 exclusionary rule. State v. White, 97 Wn.2d 92, 110, 640 P.2d 1061 (1982). Thus, the trial court erred by not granting Puris s motion to suppress the evidence discovered in the challenged search. Reversed. We concur: 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
