Legal Opinion

State v. Dodson

Court of Appeals of Washington

Decided January 29, 2002No. Nos. 19883-9-III; 19884-7-III; 19885-5-IIIPublishedCited by 13 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtSchultheis, J.

— While serving a telephonic warrant to search Monty Hamden’s property for evidence of methamphetamine manufacture, Detective Dan Anderson noticed that the warrant described a search for marijuana, not methamphetamine. The detective wrote in methampheta*116mine, served the warrant, and gathered substantial evidence of a “meth lab” on Mr. Hamden’s property. The State charged Mr. Harnden and two other people with a number of crimes, including conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine. At the suppression hearing, the trial court found that the search warrant was invalid and suppressed the evidence.…

2Cases cited17 opinions

  1. Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
  2. State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
  3. State v. RileyWashington Supreme Court · 1993
  4. State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997
  5. State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997

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

3Cited by13 opinions

  1. State v. McKeeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  2. State v. DodsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  3. State v. WibleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
  4. State v. McKeeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
  5. State v. BusigCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003

8 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