State v. Flores

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that, under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, officers may briefly seize a nonarrested companion of an arrestee to secure the scene when they have an objective rationale based on safety concerns. The seizure must remain reasonable in scope and duration, and the objective-rationale standard is distinct from the individualized reasonable-suspicion standard required for an investigatory Terry stop. The court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that evidence of the firearm found on Cody Flores should not have been suppressed.

Holdings

1. Under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution, officers executing an arrest may seize a nonarrested companion to control the scene of the arrest when they can articulate an objective rationale predicated specifically on safety concerns for officers, the arrestee, companions, or other citizens.
2. The seizure of a nonarrested companion under the objective-rationale test must remain reasonably limited in scope and duration to controlling the scene of the arrest and ensuring safety.
3. The officers had an objective safety rationale to seize Flores, and the firearm evidence should not have been suppressed.

Questions Presented

1. Whether officers executing a lawful arrest may seize a nonarrested companion of the arrestee without individualized Terry reasonable suspicion when the seizure is justified by officer-safety concerns and the need to secure the arrest scene.
2. Whether the officers' initial detention of Flores and the later order that he walk backward toward an officer constituted one continuous, permissible seizure or two separate seizures requiring independent justification.
3. Whether the firearm discovered after Flores voluntarily stated that he had a gun should have been suppressed.

Disposition

reversed