State v. Rose
Court of Appeals of Washington
1Opinion of the CourtKennedy, J.
In this case the State of Washington asks us to reverse the trial court’s suppression of evidence seized from the residence of Ryan B. Rose. The State contends the suppression was improper because (1) Rose’s landlord, Yar-ton, had authority to consent to the police search of the property, (2) the warrant was valid because it was based on evidence of illegal activity observed in open view, and (3) even excluding evidence from an illegal search, the officer’s observations still establish probable cause for the search warrant which issued. We reject the State’s contentions and affirm the trial…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited32 opinions
- Katz v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
- United States v. MatlockSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Illinois v. RodriguezSupreme Court of the United States · 1990
- Stoner v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1964
- State v. SeagullWashington Supreme Court · 1981
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by9 opinions
- State v. BrauchIdaho Supreme Court · 1999
- Cranwell v. MesecCourt of Appeals of Washington · 1995
- State of Washington v. David Joseph BrownCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- State of Washington v. David Joseph BrownCourt of Appeals of Washington · 2019
- State v. RoseWashington Supreme Court · 1996
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.