State v. Doughty (concurring)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
State v. Doughty (Walter Moses) No. 82852-1 CHAMBERS, J. (concurring) I agree with the majority that, on the record before us, there were insufficient facts to justify a Terry1 stop. I write separately to suggest that, in my view, had the record contained more specific facts indicating why this house was designated a drug house our analysis might be different. We look at the totality of the circumstances to determine whether an officer was justified in making an investigatory stop. State v. Glover, 116 Wn.2d 509, 514, 806 P.2d 760 (1991). Here, where the only facts suggesting that the house Walter Doughty approached was a drug house are neighbors complaints of short stay traffic, the totality of the circumstances do not justify the stop. I respectfully concur. 1 Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 88 S. Ct. 1868, 20 L. Ed. 2d 889 (1968). State v. Doughty (Walter Moses), No. 82852-1 AUTHOR: Justice Tom Chambers 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.
