Legal Opinion

State v. Coyne

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 25, 2000No. Nos. 17205-8-III; 17206-6-IIIPublishedCited by 14 opinions

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

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. United States v. MendenhallSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
  3. State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  4. State v. WilliamsWashington Supreme Court · 1984
  5. State v. YoungWashington Supreme Court · 1998

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

3Cited by14 opinions

  1. State v. NethWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  2. State v. NethWashington Supreme Court · 2008
  3. State v. CraneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2001
  4. State v. CoyneCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2000
  5. State v. BeitoCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2008

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

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

Powered by the Exa API