Legal Opinion

State v. Doughty

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided February 5, 2009No. 26573-1-IIIPublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSweeney, J.

¶1 The defendant here appeals the trial court’s refusal to suppress drug evidence seized after he visited a drug house at 3:20 a.m. for a two-minute-long visit. We conclude that the circumstances provided ample grounds for a Terry1 stop and affirm the trial judge’s refusal to suppress the drug evidence.

FACTS

¶2 Officer Derek Bishop was watching a particular house for drug activity because informants identified it as a drug *587house. At 3:20 a.m., Officer Bishop saw a car park in front of the house. The driver, Walter Doughty, entered the house and returned to his car in less than two minutes. Mr.…

Also in this document: Concurrence.

2Cases cited12 opinions

  1. Terry v. OhioSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
  2. State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. LadsonWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  4. State v. LadsonWashington Supreme Court · 1999
  5. State v. KennedyWashington Supreme Court · 1986

7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. State v. DoughtyWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  2. State v. DoughtyWashington Supreme Court · 2010
  3. State v. MarcumCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2009
  4. State v. KellyConnecticut Appellate Court · 2011

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API