State v. Coyne
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the Court
Brown, J. —
Daniel W. Coyne and Clinton J. Burt successfully sought suppression of drug evidence discovered following a consent search that flowed from Mr. Coyne’s effort to recover a lost coat. Because the police had discharged the governmental duty in connection to the lost coat before detaining Mr. Coyne and Mr. Burt without an articulable suspicion to investigate further, we agree that the consent was vitiated by a prior illegal seizure, and affirm.
FACTS
The facts are undisputed. Since the sole issue centers on *569whether the facts support the trial court’s conclusion, we set out the trial…
2Cases cited19 opinions
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. YoungWashington Supreme Court · 1998
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by14 opinions
- State v. NethWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. NethWashington Supreme Court · 2008
- State v. CraneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
- State v. CoyneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
- State v. BeitoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.