State Of Washington v. Pawel Albin Orlinski
This text of State Of Washington v. Pawel Albin Orlinski (State Of Washington v. Pawel Albin Orlinski) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 74966-8-1 Respondent, ) ) DIVISION ONE v. ) ) PAWEL ALBIN ORLINSKI, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) FILED: July 24, 2017 )
BECKER, J. — Evidence that a police officer was disciplined for violating
official policy in his relationship with a confidential informant was not relevant to
his credibility as the investigating officer who discovered appellant in possession
of methamphetamine. The trial court did not err in excluding the evidence. We
affirm appellant's conviction for possession.
Deputy Mark Brown encountered appellant Pawel Orlinski acting
erratically in the street one night in June 2015. Deputy Brown searched Orlinski
incident to arrest and found a baggie with a substance later identified as
methamphetamine. A jury convicted Orlinski of possession of
methamphetamine. He appeals and argues that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to present a defense by limiting his cross-examination of
Deputy Brown.
No. 74966-8-1/2
Orlinski wanted to cross-examine Deputy Brown about two internal
investigations. In 2009, Deputy Brown was investigated for transporting a
confidential informant in his patrol car in violation of department policy.
Allegedly, he had a sexual relationship with the informant. Then at the time of
trial in this case, another internal investigation was pending concerning an
allegation that Deputy Brown lied to a sergeant by concealing the fact that he
made a traffic stop when he was not on duty. c7) rft3 ti) IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON —4=.
tTi c) STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 74966-8-1 Respondent, ) coorrt) 3:0 ) DIVISION ONE 5E17- V. ) c?? CY5P ) cit =7— PAWEL ALBIN ORLINSKI, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. ) FILED: July 24, 2017 )
BECKER, J. — Evidence that a police officer was disciplined for violating
official policy in his relationship with a confidential informant was not relevant to
his credibility as the investigating officer who discovered appellant in possession
of methamphetamine. The trial court did not err in excluding the evidence. We
Deputy Mark Brown encountered appellant Pawel Orlinski acting
erratically in the street one night in June 2015. Deputy Brown searched Orlinski
incident to arrest and found a baggie with a substance later identified as
methamphetamine. He appeals and argues that the trial court violated his
constitutional right to present a defense by limiting his cross-examination of
Deputy Brown. No. 74966-8-1/2
Orlinski wanted to cross-examine Deputy Brown about two internal
investigations. In 2009, Deputy Brown was investigated for transporting a
confidential informant in his patrol car in violation of department policy.
Allegedly, he had a sexual relationship with the informant. Then at the time of
trial in this case, another internal investigation was pending concerning an
allegation that Deputy Brown lied to a sergeant by concealing the fact that he
made a traffic stop when he was not on duty.
The trial court allowed cross-examination only about the pending
investigation:
THE COURT: Okay. At this point the prior incident with respect to sexual misconduct and misconduct with the confidential informant, unless there is evidence—and I haven't been presented with any at this point—that Deputy Brown . . . at the time of Mr. Orlinski's arrest and at the time he wrote his report was somehow facing loss of his job or something like that such that he would have some motive to fabricate what occurred with Mr. Orlinski, I just don't see how that prior disciplinary matter is really relevant to anything. With respect to the current investigation for dishonesty, I don't know what the stage of the investigation is or the adjudicative process. . . . But it does appear to me to be relevant generally to Deputy Brown's credibility and given that he's the sole witness in this case as to the reasons why Mr. Orlinski was detained in the first instance or that he even came into contact with Mr. Orlinski in the first instance, I think that that evidence is relevant at least for purposes of cross-examination under ER 608 and I'm going to permit it in cross-examination.
Orlinski argues that the trial court violated his Sixth Amendment right to
present a defense and ER 608(b) by refusing to allow him to cross-examine
Deputy Brown about the 2009 internal investigation.
A court's limitation of the scope of cross-examination will not be disturbed
unless it is the result of manifest abuse of discretion. State v. Darden, 145
2 No. 74966-8-1/3
Wn.2d 612, 619,41 P.3d 1189(2002). The more essential the witness is to the
prosecution's case, the more latitude the defense should be given to explore
fundamental elements such as motive, bias, credibility, or foundational matters.
Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 619.
The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses is guaranteed
by both the federal and state constitutions. U.S. CONST. amend 6; WASH. CONST.
art. 1,§ 22. The primary and most important component is the right to conduct a
meaningful cross-examination of adverse witnesses. The purpose is to test the
perception, memory, and credibility of witnesses. Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 620.
Still, the confrontation right and the right to associated cross-examination are
limited by general considerations of relevance. Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 621. See
ER 401, 403. There is no right, constitutional or otherwise, to have irrelevant
evidence admitted. Darden, 145 Wn.2d at 624.
Evidence is relevant if it has a tendency to make the existence of any fact
of consequence more probable or less probable than it would be without the
evidence. ER 401.
The allegation against Deputy Brown in 2009 stated in full:
It is alleged that Deputy Mark Brown is involved in the following misconduct: 1. Is having or has had a sexual relationship with a KCSO and DEA confidential/transactional informant[name redacted]. [Name redacted] is an habitual drug user with a criminal history. 2. That this relationship occurred and was primarily conducted during Deputy Brown's working hours. 3. That Deputy Brown's relationship with [name redacted]jeopardized a Federal drug investigation in which [name redacted] is a key witness. 4. As a result, it is alleged that Deputy Brown's conduct is this matter has caused diminished respect and confidence in the Sheriff's Office and that his conduct can reasonably be conceived to compromise the integrity or credibility of himself and the Sheriff's Office. 5. That
3 No. 74966-8-1/4
Deputy Brown transported [name redacted] in his patrol car while on-duty without advising his supervisor or having a hold harmless waiver on file.
Deputy Brown received a written reprimand for transporting a civilian rider with
whom he had a relationship. "This was done without the required permission
from a supervisor, and without the proper hold-harmless paperwork and
background work done."
There was no allegation that Deputy Brown was untruthful. His improper
behavior was not probative of his truthfulness. It did not reflect a motivation to
fabricate a justification for his actions to avoid further disciplinary action. His
violation of the rules of the King County Sheriff's Office did not make it more or
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State Of Washington v. Pawel Albin Orlinski, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-washington-v-pawel-albin-orlinski-washctapp-2017.