Zuanich Law Newsletter
Episode #14: The 2020 Presidential Candidates Competition
Week #2: The Trump Episode
- Competition Results (Week #1)
Give it up for Megan Dunn, the sole winner for week #1, who identified “moderate” as the word associated with John Delaney, the former Maryland congressman.
Megan: Congratulations … the way things are going, you’re just about 22 weeks away from getting your own episode.
Honorable Mention: Jonathan Dichter and Judge Lizanne Padula for inspired guesses … (Megan: you better watch these two: I suspect they’ll be giving you a run for your money)
- Competition Rules (a recap)
We’ve had some new subscribers this past week, so to recap the rules for the competition:
The Contest: This competition will last 22 weeks—one week for every declared Democratic, Republican, and Independent candidate for President (at least for now)
The Rules: The title of each week will be one candidate’s name. Your must find the Easter egg word or phrase buried within the newsletter that is associated with the candidate—could be a policy position, birthplace, controversy, etc.
Winning: The first 20 PEOPLE to email / text / message me the correct word win a point. The winners will be announced at each subsequent newsletter, and the top 20 will be ranked according to the fastest response.
This week … we turn from one of the least well-known candidates to clearly the most recognizable: The President.
Good luck on week #2. The candidate is TRUMP
State v. Peck
Washington Supreme Court
September 26, 2019
Topic: Inventory Searches
Facts: Peck and his friend burglarized a home but then their pick-up truck got stuck in the snow when they were trying to escape (insert stupid criminal joke here).
Police detain both of them, run places and determine that the car was stolen. Both subjects Mirandized … and smartly they both stay silent.
Oh wait … of course they didn’t. Peck said that his friend picked him up earlier that day in the truck and that his friend started the truck with the screwdriver (clearly … just your average Sunday).
Asked whether they had gone in any of the houses … Peck “assured” the officer “they had not.”
Surprisingly … the officers were not convinced by this assurance and asked a very complicated follow-up question: “Anything in the vehicle?”
At this point … it was like watching the end of one of The Rock’s action movies … you’re intrigued … but the ending is not a surprise.
Police arrest Peck for various crimes, including burglary. Police inventory stolen car. As part of inventory, police see a “black zippered nylon case” that seemed to hold CDs and opened it. Police find meth and a scale.
State charge Peck with various crimes, including possession with intent to deliver. Motion to suppress contents of nylon case denied. COA reverses.
Holding: WSC reverses. Two main rulings.
First ruling is not earth-shattering (based on case law): Peck has automatic standing to challenge inventory search because was in possession of truck at time of search and charged with “possessory offense.”
Second was more controversial (and you’ll see what after reading the 40 PLUS PAGE DISSENT … and believe me, it was a tremendously long dissent).
Court spends a lot of time on prior case dealing with inventory searches and whether the nylon case was more liked a closed luggage with a lock (need a warrant) or something less private (no warrant needed).
To make a complicated analysis a little less complicated, WSC ruled that a nylon case that looked like it holds CDs “does not possess the same aura of privacy as a purse, shaving kit, or personal luggage.”
More generally, Court held that a proper inventory of a stolen vehicle extends to opening unlocked, innocuous closed containers in other to determine ownership. Furthermore, our holding is limited to cases where the circumstances strongly indicate that ownership is unknown.
My take: What do “innocuous” closed containers means? The COA and the lower courts will get to thrash this out, I assume. Are we going to find a lot of things that are similar to a “nylon case that could hold CDs” in the future? (I mean, seriously, who even has CDs?”
State v. Jackson
Court of Appeals (Div. 2)
August 20, 2019
Topic: Pre-Trial Restraints
Facts: Trial courts in Clallam County shackle all defendants for pretrial hearings, per Clallam County Corrections Facility’s shackling policy, for “security concerns.” Jackson shackled for in-custody pre-trial hearings and then for jury trial fitted with “leg brace,” which he wore under his clothes. Defense attorney objected, arguing trial court never made any rulings about having a brace during jury trials. Court denied motion. Jury never saw brace.
Holding: Conviction affirmed. Trial court clearly violated the law, and it wasn’t even close. Deferring to general jail policy about pre-trial shacking (absent an individualized analysis) is abuse of discretion and constitutional error. (For a judge, being told you abused your discretion and committed constitutional error is less than ideal).
BUT … although constitutional errors are presumed prejudicial, this error was not because “improperly restraining a defendant is harmless error if the jury does not see the defendant in restraints.”
My take: Talk about a hollow victory for the defense: Yes, judge clearly committed an egregious constitutional error, but the jury didn’t see it, so #sorrynotsorry. Will this ruling cause Clallam County to change its jail policy? Arguably not.
In Court waiting for time to pass: Check out my past newsletters.
About Us: Zuanich Law focuses on criminal appeals and post-conviction relief. We also handle personal injury law, business litigation, and general civil litigation.
|
|
|
|
