State v. Hatchie, 161 Wn. 2d 390

Summary

The Washington Supreme Court held that a valid misdemeanor arrest warrant constitutes authority of law for police to make a limited entry into a suspect’s residence when the entry is reasonable, nonpretextual, and officers have probable cause to believe the suspect resides there and is present. The court concluded that the officers had probable cause to believe Eric Schinnell resided at the duplex and that their plain-view observations supported a later search warrant. The court also held that Raymond Hatchie failed to preserve his allocution claim because he did not object.

Holdings

1. A valid misdemeanor arrest warrant constitutes authority of law under article I, section 7 and gives police limited authority to enter the suspect's residence to execute the arrest, provided the entry is reasonable, is not a pretext for an unauthorized search or investigation, police have probable cause to believe the suspect resides there, and the suspect is actually present.
2. An arrest warrant does not by itself authorize entry into a third party's residence; police must have probable cause to believe the named suspect is an actual resident of the place entered.
3. The officers had probable cause to believe that Schinnell was a resident of Hatchie's duplex, making their limited entry under the arrest warrant lawful.
4. Hatchie failed to preserve any violation of his right to allocution because he did not object when the court announced its proposed sentence before allowing him to speak.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a valid misdemeanor arrest warrant constitutes authority of law under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution to enter a residence to arrest the named suspect.
2. What standard governs whether police have reason to believe that the residence they enter is the suspect's residence.
3. Whether the officers had probable cause to believe Schinnell was a resident of Hatchie's duplex.
4. Whether Hatchie preserved a claim that his statutory right of allocution was violated when the judge announced a proposed sentence before allowing him to speak.

Disposition

affirmed