In re Pers. Restraint of Nichols
Annotate this CasePetitioner Glen Nichols was charged with possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver, and with possession of less than 40 grams of marijuana. Following a denial of his motion to suppress the evidence seized from his arrest, the case proceeded to a bench trial at which Petitioner was found guilty on both charges. After he was sentenced, Petitioner appealed his convictions. Petitioner filed a Personal Restraint Petition (PRP) challenging the police search of the motel registry where he was staying when he was arrested. While his appeal was pending, the Supreme Court decided State v. Surge where it held that a random, warrantless check of motel registry records was unconstitutional. The appellate court affirmed Petitioner’s convictions and denied his PRP. On appeal, Petitioner argues that in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the “Surge” case, evidence stemming from the police search of the motel registry should have been suppressed. The Court was not persuaded by his argument, holding that Petitioner’s case differed from the “Surge” case in that police were not doing a random check of the records, rather, they had “individualized suspicion that drug selling activity had taken place from” his room. The Court affirmed the appellate court’s decision.
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.