State Of Washington, Respondent V Sebastian J. Haller, Appellant (Majority)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

C.'00T OF APPEqPLS Dl tr jv!.) J 1i 2010 JUL 28 AN, 8: 28 6ki cN nV ASFIINGTVt114 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGY EILE MIT Y DIVISION II No. 46383 -1 - II STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent. VIM UNPUBLISHED OPINION SEBASTIAN J. HALLER, Sebastian Haller appeals his conviction for heroin possession arguing that SUTTON, J. — the trial court erred in denying his CrR 3. 6 motion to suppress evidence discovered in his bedroom during a search suppressed. Br. of his of Resp' t residence. at 1. The State concedes that the evidence should have been We accept the concession.' Pursuant to RAP 18. 14( a) 2 and 18. 14( e)( 2) 3, we reverse Haller' s heroin possession conviction and remand to the trial court to dismiss the State' s charge. This matter was initially considered by a commissioner of this court pursuant to RAP 18. 14 and subsequently referred to a panel ofjudges. t] he appellate court may, on its own motion or on motion of a party, affirm or reverse a decision or any part thereof on the merits in accordance with the procedures RAP 18. 14( x) provides that "[ defined in this rule." 3 RAP 18. 14( e)( 2) provides as follows: A motion on the merits to reverse will be granted in whole or in part if the appeal or any part thereof is determined to be clearly with merit. In making these determinations, the judge or commissioner will consider all relevant factors including whether the issues on review (a) are clearly controlled by settled law, (b) are factual and clearly not supported by the evidence, or (c) are smatters of judicial discretion and the decision was clearly an abuse of discretion. No. 46383 - 1 - II FACTS At the time of the contested search, Haller was serving a 12 -month community custody', term supervised by Community community custody, Haller' Officer Adam from an Haggerty his Kilmer. As a condition of his subject to search to ensure his compliance with was " informed Kilmer that he had informant that Haller Proceedings ( VRP) ( 1/ 15/ 14) part of home s Gary Clerk's Papers ( CP) at 17 ( Finding of Fact ( FF) 1. 2). probation." tips" Corrections Officer ( CCO) at dealing drugs from his was 11, 38. needed to residence. or Verbatim Report of A few days later, Kilmer went to Haller' s residence as regular supervision schedule with informed Haller that he " received unspecified " reports" check" Officers Haller' s Lowrey and Haggerty as bedroom. VRP ( 1/ 15/ 14) backup. at 12. Kilmer Haller said that a man and a woman were in the bedroom getting dressed and he provided the name of the woman. About three minutes later, a couple emerged from the bedroom; they were later identified as Cassie Christensen and Robert Lusk. Christensen carried a backpack and a purse. After Christensen and Lusk gave the officers a false name as to Lusk, the officers arrested them for providing false information. The officers began to search the backpack Christensen had been carrying, at which point the couple informed the officers that the backpack belonged to Haller. While Officers Lowrey and Haggerty questioned Lusk and Christensen, Kilmer searched Haller' s bedroom something and observed you would use syringes, for drugs." marijuana, and other items that " appeared to be VRP ( 1/ 15/ 14) at 16. After summoning Kilmer back to the living room, the officers informed Kilmer that Christensen and Lusk reported that the backpack belonged to Haller, and Kilmer searched the backpack. Inside, Kilmer found a scale with brown 2 No. 46383 -1 - II a methamphetamine pipe with residue, and small residue, baggies. Kilmer arrested Haller for possession of drug paraphernalia. While Kilmer arrested Haller, Officer Haggerty phoned the Honorable James Buzzard to request a warrant to search and seize the backpack .and further search Haller' s bedroom. The requested warrant was based upon what Kilmer observed in the initial search of the bedroom and the objects found in the backpack. Judge Buzzard authorized a search warrant as Haggerty requested. Pursuant to the warrant, the officers again searched the backpack and Haller' s bedroom. In the bedroom, Officer Lowrey found heroin, hypodermic needles, metal melting pots, and scales with tar residue. The State amended the information as to Haller; charging him with 1 count of procession of a controlled substance ( heroin). Pursuant to CrR 3. 6, Haller moved to suppress all of the evidence obtained through the illegal search of his home. The trial court denied Haller' s motion, concluding, " CCO Kilmer had authority to search [ Haller' s] residence and belongings due to [ his] status as a parolee on DOC supervision." CP at 21 ( FF 2. 1). Haller appeals. 4 ANALYSIS Haller argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence because Kilmer did not have reasonable cause to believe he had violated a condition of his community custody. Haller contends that Kilmer relied solely on anonymous tips that Haller was engaged in drug- related activity to justify searching Haller' s bedroom. The State concedes that the 4 Haller assigns error to the trial court' s denial of his CrR 3. 6 motion and also assigns error to findings of fact 1. 2 and 1. 7 and conclusions of law 2. 4, 2. 5, 2. 6, 2. 7, 2. 8, and 2. 9. However, because the State concedes that evidence discovered during the search of his residence was improperly admitted, we do not address his assignments of error beyond the trial court' s denial of his motion. 3 No. 46383 -1 - II information relayed by Haggerty to Kilmer was insufficient to provide Kilmer with reasonable cause to search Haller' s bedroom. We accept the State' s concession. The United States Constitution guarantees that individuals will remain secure in their person and home from unreasonable searches and seizures. U.S. CONST. amend. IV. Washington' s constitution states without authority that "[ of n] o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, law." WASH. CONST. art. I, § 7. It is well-established that a warrantless search is presumptively unreasonable unless the search falls under one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement. State State demonstrate that the cannot applies. State v. v. 184 Wn. Westvang, Allen, 138 Wn. App. search was App. 1, 5- 6, 335 P. 3d 1024 ( 2014). In the event that the lawful, the " fruit of the poisonous tree" doctrine 463, 469, 157 P. 3d 893 ( 2007). "` When anunconstitutional search or seizure occurs, all subsequently uncovered evidence becomes fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed."' Allen, 138 Wn. App. at 469 ( quoting State v. Ladson, 138 Wn.2d 343, 359, 979 P. 2d 833 ( 1999)). Law enforcement may search a parolee' s home without a warrant as a condition of community custody supervision under RCW 9. 94A.631( 1). A parolee has a reduced expectation of privacy due to the State' s interest in supervising the parolee. State v. Jardinez, 184 Wn. App. 518, 523, 338 P. 3d 292 ( 2014). When searching a parolee' s home, however, law enforcement must possess " reasonable cause to believe that an offender has violated a condition or requirement 11 No. 46383 -1 - II of the sentence." cause" to require occurred."' RCW 9. 94A. 631( 1) ( emphasis added). that law enforcement have a "` The court has construed " reasonable well- founded suspicion that a violation has dardinez, 184 Wn. App. at 524 ( quoting State v. Massey, 81 Wn. App. 198, 200, 913 We analogize the " reasonable cause" standard to the " reasonable suspicion" P. 2d 424 ( 1996)). requirement. Jardinez, 184 Wn. App. at 524. Reasonable suspicion, like probable cause, is dependent upon both the content of information possessed by 917, 199 P. 3d 445 ( 2008) ( police and its degree of reliability."' State v. Lee, 147 Wn. App. 912, quoting State v. Randall, 73 Wn. App. 225, 229, 868 P. 2d 207 ( 1994)). An informant' s tip may generate the requisite level of suspicion to justify the search of a parolee' s home, but certain safeguards must be observed. State v. Lyons, 174 Wn.2d 354, 359, 275 P. 3d 314 2012). of The informant' s tip must carry some indicia of reliability when assessed under the totality the circumstances. Specifically, the State v. Z. U.E., No. 89894- 4, Slip Op. at 8 ( Wash. S. Ct. July 16, 2015). State must demonstrate that there are "( 1) circumstances establishing the informant's reliability or ( 2) some corroborative observation, usually by the officers, that shows either ( a) the presence of criminal activity or (b) that the informer's information was obtained in a reliable fashion." Z.U.E., Slip Op. at 8. Here, the State concedes that Officer Haggerty' s testimony at the CrR 3. 6 hearing, that he heard " reports" that Haller was dealing drugs from his residence, does not establish " reasonable cause" to believe that Haller violated his community custody provision. Br. of Resp' t at 5. The record lacks any testimony " regarding the indicia of reliability of Officer Haggerty' s source( s)." Br. of Resp' t reliability, at nor 5. was Specifically, Haggerty presented no evidence to establish the informant' s he able to offer any corroborative 5 observations. Instead, the tips were No. 46383 -1 - II anonymous and consisted of conclusory assertions that Haller was dealing drugs. Thus, the State concedes that " all evidence recovered is the fruit of the poisonous tree and must be suppressed." Br. of Resp' t at 6. We agree. Kilmer' s initial search of Haller' s bedroom was unlawful because it was not based upon a reasonable cause" to believe that Haller violated a term of his community custody. Therefore, the drugs and drug paraphernalia that Kilmer obtained while at Haller' s home must be suppressed. The search of the backpack that Christensen carried also was tainted because that search flowed from Kilmer' s unlawful search of Haller' s bedroom. Had Kilmer not attempted to search the bedroom, Christensen and Lusk would not have come out of the room with the backpack, and Kilmer would not have searched the backpack and found contraband in it. Moreover, the observations Kilmer made in Haller' s bedroom flowed from the initial unlawful search of the bedroom. Kilmer' s search and seizure of Christensen and Lusk, and the drugs and paraphernalia Kilmer found in Haller' s bedroom, also formed the basis for Kilmer' s request for the search warrant that was not based on reasonable cause. Because the initial search of Haller' s bedroom was unlawful, all subsequently uncovered evidence must be suppressed. No. 46383 -1 - II We reverse Haller' s heroin possession conviction and remand for the trial court to dismiss the charge. A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record in accordance with RCW 2. 06. 040, it is so ordered. A- LtMJ. 4 SUTTON, J. We concur: BJ A.! RGr_; i MELNICK, J. 7

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.