FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2017 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 33947-5-111 Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) VICTORIA ASHLEE KNEZEVICH, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. - Victoria Knezevich appeals her conviction for possession of a
controlled substance, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress
evidence. The trial court properly rejected both of her suppression arguments. We
affirm.
FACTS
Ms. Knezevich was a passenger in a vehicle that drew the attention of a Cle Elum
resident by speeding over 100 m.p.h. around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of May 10, 2015.
The resident confronted the driver at a gas station and then reported the incident to
Kittitas County Deputy Sheriff Nathan Foster who was sitting in his patrol car outside the
sheriffs substation. The resident reported the vehicle's license number to Foster and told
the deputy that the four occupants were "acting suspicious." No. 33947-5-111 State v. Knezevich
Deputy Foster then checked the license plate number provided through his car's
mobile data center. Records indicated the vehicle's registration expired in 2013 and the
title to the vehicle had not been transferred within 15 days of an April 2015 sale. 1 Deputy
Foster decided to drive to the area where the vehicle had been reported, later testifying,
"So at that point I decided to head up towards the gas station, number one, just to check
them out. To see what was going, why they were acting suspicious."
He soon located the vehicle, followed it for a short time, and noted that the license
plate carried a 2016 registration tag that conflicted with the 2013 registration information
reported by records. He activated his lights and pulled the vehicle over. The driver,
Darwin Riedl, was placed under arrest for driving with a suspended license. 2 When Riedl
exited the vehicle, Deputy Foster noticed an item sitting on the ledge between the car's
door and the driver's seat: a hollow blue pen tube, melted on one end, which in his
training and experience he recognized as a tool commonly used to smoke heroin or other
drugs.
1 "A person who has recently acquired a motor vehicle ... who does not apply for a new certificate of title within fifteen calendar days of delivery of the vehicle is charged a penalty ... when applying for a new certificate of title." RCW 46.12.650. 2 Mr. Riedl' s license was suspended in the third degree. Further investigation revealed the 2016 tab on the Acura's license plate was improper. The tab had been issued for the plate of a Honda Civic registered to Mr. Riedl.
2 No. 33947-5-111 State v. Knezevich
There were three passengers in the car, with Ms. Knezevich seated directly behind
the driver. After securing Riedl, the deputy returned to the passenger side of the car and
noted a box of foil at Ms. Knezevich's feet, and a tan pen tube with a melted end near the
passenger door. In Deputy Foster's experience, he knew that aluminum foil is utilized
when smoking heroin. At this point, Deputy Foster established a reasonable suspicion for
possession of drug paraphernalia, since at least one suspicious item was within reach of
all three passengers; he requested their identifications.
Ms. Knezevich provided a false name in order to avoid arrest on an outstanding
warrant and was booked into the jail under that name. Her true identity was later
discovered during a search of the car. The search also uncovered additional drug
paraphernalia and a container of methamphetamine.
Ms. Knezevich was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession
of drug paraphernalia, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. Her counsel
subsequently moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing
that it was pretextual. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion. Written findings
of fact were subsequently entered.
After losing the suppression motion, Ms. Knezevich waived her right to a jury trial
and proceeded to a stipulated facts trial. She was found guilty as charged. Findings in
support of the bench verdict were also entered. Ms. Knezevich timely appealed to this
court.
3 No. 33947-5-III State v. Knezevich
ANALYSIS
Ms. Knezevich presents two arguments challenging the traffic stop and subsequent
search. Specifically, she argues that the traffic stop was pretextual and that the deputy
unlawfully detained her at the scene. We consider the two claims together.
An appellate court reviews de novo the trial court's conclusions of law pertaining
to a motion to suppress. State v. Arreola, 176 Wn.2d 284,291,290 P.3d 983 (2012). We
review findings of fact related to a motion to suppress under the substantial evidence
standard. State v. Montes-Malindas, 144 Wn. App. 254,259, 182 P.3d 999 (2008),
overruled on other grounds by Brend/in v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 168
L. Ed. 2d 132 (2007). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-
minded, rational person of the truth of the finding. Id.
Pretextual stops are prohibited by art. I, § 7, of the Washington Constitution.
Arreola, 176 Wn.2d at 294. Pretextual stops occur when an officer stops a vehicle in
order to conduct a speculative criminal investigation unrelated to enforcement of the
traffic code. State v. DeSantiago, 97 Wn. App. 446, 451, 983 P .2d 1173 ( 1999). "When
determining whether a given stop is pretextual, the court should consider the totality of
the circumstances, including both the subjective intent of the officer as well as the
objective reasonableness of the officer's behavior." Id. at 452.
Everything the deputy was investigating up to the time of the stop was a violation
of the traffic code-the expired 2013 registration of the car, the untimely reported sale of
4 No. 33947-5-III State v. Knezevich
the vehicle in 2015, and the inexplicable appearance of a 2016 tab on the vehicle. On its
face, nothing was pretextual about this stop. An expired vehicle registration is an
articulable suspicion of a traffic infraction (a violation of RCW 46. l 6A.030 3), and a
traffic stop based on an expired registration is not pretextual. State v. Santacruz, 132 Wn.
App. 615, 621, 133 P.3d 484 (2006). Additionally, "there is no constitutional violation in
allowing a police officer to assume a citizen's report has some basis when he is
conducting an initial investigation of that complaint." State v. Glenn, 140 Wn. App. 627,
635, 166 PJd 1235 (2007).
DOL keeps records that include information on vehicle registration and
ownership, in part for use by law enforcement. State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20, 32, 60
P Jd 46 (2002). There is no protected privacy interest in the information contained in
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
FILED FEBRUARY 14, 2017 In the Office of the Clerk of Court WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, ) ) No. 33947-5-111 Respondent, ) ) v. ) ) VICTORIA ASHLEE KNEZEVICH, ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION ) Appellant. )
KORSMO, J. - Victoria Knezevich appeals her conviction for possession of a
controlled substance, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motion to suppress
evidence. The trial court properly rejected both of her suppression arguments. We
affirm.
FACTS
Ms. Knezevich was a passenger in a vehicle that drew the attention of a Cle Elum
resident by speeding over 100 m.p.h. around 2:00 a.m. on the morning of May 10, 2015.
The resident confronted the driver at a gas station and then reported the incident to
Kittitas County Deputy Sheriff Nathan Foster who was sitting in his patrol car outside the
sheriffs substation. The resident reported the vehicle's license number to Foster and told
the deputy that the four occupants were "acting suspicious." No. 33947-5-111 State v. Knezevich
Deputy Foster then checked the license plate number provided through his car's
mobile data center. Records indicated the vehicle's registration expired in 2013 and the
title to the vehicle had not been transferred within 15 days of an April 2015 sale. 1 Deputy
Foster decided to drive to the area where the vehicle had been reported, later testifying,
"So at that point I decided to head up towards the gas station, number one, just to check
them out. To see what was going, why they were acting suspicious."
He soon located the vehicle, followed it for a short time, and noted that the license
plate carried a 2016 registration tag that conflicted with the 2013 registration information
reported by records. He activated his lights and pulled the vehicle over. The driver,
Darwin Riedl, was placed under arrest for driving with a suspended license. 2 When Riedl
exited the vehicle, Deputy Foster noticed an item sitting on the ledge between the car's
door and the driver's seat: a hollow blue pen tube, melted on one end, which in his
training and experience he recognized as a tool commonly used to smoke heroin or other
drugs.
1 "A person who has recently acquired a motor vehicle ... who does not apply for a new certificate of title within fifteen calendar days of delivery of the vehicle is charged a penalty ... when applying for a new certificate of title." RCW 46.12.650. 2 Mr. Riedl' s license was suspended in the third degree. Further investigation revealed the 2016 tab on the Acura's license plate was improper. The tab had been issued for the plate of a Honda Civic registered to Mr. Riedl.
2 No. 33947-5-111 State v. Knezevich
There were three passengers in the car, with Ms. Knezevich seated directly behind
the driver. After securing Riedl, the deputy returned to the passenger side of the car and
noted a box of foil at Ms. Knezevich's feet, and a tan pen tube with a melted end near the
passenger door. In Deputy Foster's experience, he knew that aluminum foil is utilized
when smoking heroin. At this point, Deputy Foster established a reasonable suspicion for
possession of drug paraphernalia, since at least one suspicious item was within reach of
all three passengers; he requested their identifications.
Ms. Knezevich provided a false name in order to avoid arrest on an outstanding
warrant and was booked into the jail under that name. Her true identity was later
discovered during a search of the car. The search also uncovered additional drug
paraphernalia and a container of methamphetamine.
Ms. Knezevich was charged with possession of a controlled substance, possession
of drug paraphernalia, and obstruction of a law enforcement officer. Her counsel
subsequently moved to suppress the evidence obtained during the traffic stop, arguing
that it was pretextual. The trial court disagreed and denied the motion. Written findings
of fact were subsequently entered.
After losing the suppression motion, Ms. Knezevich waived her right to a jury trial
and proceeded to a stipulated facts trial. She was found guilty as charged. Findings in
support of the bench verdict were also entered. Ms. Knezevich timely appealed to this
court.
3 No. 33947-5-III State v. Knezevich
ANALYSIS
Ms. Knezevich presents two arguments challenging the traffic stop and subsequent
search. Specifically, she argues that the traffic stop was pretextual and that the deputy
unlawfully detained her at the scene. We consider the two claims together.
An appellate court reviews de novo the trial court's conclusions of law pertaining
to a motion to suppress. State v. Arreola, 176 Wn.2d 284,291,290 P.3d 983 (2012). We
review findings of fact related to a motion to suppress under the substantial evidence
standard. State v. Montes-Malindas, 144 Wn. App. 254,259, 182 P.3d 999 (2008),
overruled on other grounds by Brend/in v. California, 551 U.S. 249, 127 S. Ct. 2400, 168
L. Ed. 2d 132 (2007). Substantial evidence is evidence sufficient to persuade a fair-
minded, rational person of the truth of the finding. Id.
Pretextual stops are prohibited by art. I, § 7, of the Washington Constitution.
Arreola, 176 Wn.2d at 294. Pretextual stops occur when an officer stops a vehicle in
order to conduct a speculative criminal investigation unrelated to enforcement of the
traffic code. State v. DeSantiago, 97 Wn. App. 446, 451, 983 P .2d 1173 ( 1999). "When
determining whether a given stop is pretextual, the court should consider the totality of
the circumstances, including both the subjective intent of the officer as well as the
objective reasonableness of the officer's behavior." Id. at 452.
Everything the deputy was investigating up to the time of the stop was a violation
of the traffic code-the expired 2013 registration of the car, the untimely reported sale of
4 No. 33947-5-III State v. Knezevich
the vehicle in 2015, and the inexplicable appearance of a 2016 tab on the vehicle. On its
face, nothing was pretextual about this stop. An expired vehicle registration is an
articulable suspicion of a traffic infraction (a violation of RCW 46. l 6A.030 3), and a
traffic stop based on an expired registration is not pretextual. State v. Santacruz, 132 Wn.
App. 615, 621, 133 P.3d 484 (2006). Additionally, "there is no constitutional violation in
allowing a police officer to assume a citizen's report has some basis when he is
conducting an initial investigation of that complaint." State v. Glenn, 140 Wn. App. 627,
635, 166 PJd 1235 (2007).
DOL keeps records that include information on vehicle registration and
ownership, in part for use by law enforcement. State v. McKinney, 148 Wn.2d 20, 32, 60
P Jd 46 (2002). There is no protected privacy interest in the information contained in
DOL records, and access of these records by law enforcement does not violate a person's
rights. Id.
Deputy Foster lawfully stopped the vehicle because the tip he had received,
coupled with his initial investigation via mobile data center, indicated that the vehicle had
an expired registration, a traffic infraction per RCW 46.16A.030( 5). Glenn, 140 Wn.
App. at 635; McKinney, 148 Wn.2d at 32. There is no evidence that Deputy Foster
stopped the vehicle merely because the resident indicated the occupants of the vehicle
3 RCW 46.16A.030(5) reads, "Failure to renew an expired registration before operating a vehicle on the public highways of this state is a traffic infraction."
5 No. 33947-5-111 State v. Knezevich
were "acting suspicious." Deputy Foster's testimony indicated his desire to find the
vehicle only arose after he learned of the expired registration. Santacruz, 132 Wn. App.
at 621. The deputy was then able to see, with his own eyes, a tab on the license plate that
conflicted with the DOL information, providing him with further articulable suspicion for
a traffic investigation, rendering his decision to perform a traffic stop objectively
reasonable. DeSantiago, 97 Wn. App. at 452. Given the totality of the circumstances,
Deputy Foster reasonably acted to investigate an ongoing traffic infraction.
The traffic stop was not pretextual. The remaining question is whether Ms.
Knezevich was unreasonably detained at the scene before she was arrested. She was not.
An automobile passenger is not unlawfully detained or seized merely because an
officer stops the vehicle she is riding in. State v. Mendez, 137 Wn.2d 208, 222, 970 P.2d
722 (1999). However, there is an unconstitutional seizure if an officer requests
identification from a passenger without independent cause, such as suspicion of
additional criminal activity, to support the request. State v. Larson, 93 Wn.2d 638, 642,
611 P.2d 771 (1980).
By the time he requested identification from Ms. Knezevich and the other
passengers, effectively seizing them, Deputy Foster had established cause, independent of
the traffic stop, to ask the passengers for their identification. He had seen within reach of
all of them items he immediately recognized as contraband-the hollow pen tubes and
6 No. 33947-5-111 State v. Knezevich
aluminum foil. Larson, 93 Wn.2d at 642. He therefore had a basis for investigating each
passenger for possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of a controlled substance.
Ms. Knezevich was not seized or otherwise improperly detained before the deputy
established cause to do so. The trial court, therefore, correctly denied the motion to
suppress.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
Pennell, J.