State v. Dodson
Court of Appeals of Washington
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
- Miranda v. ArizonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- State v. HillWashington Supreme Court · 1994
- State v. RileyWashington Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997
- State v. ArmentaWashington Supreme Court · 1997
12 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by13 opinions
- State v. McKeeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- State v. DodsonCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- State v. WibleCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2002
- State v. McKeeCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2007
- State v. BusigCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2003
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.