State of Washington v. Laura Jean Taylor

FILED
APRIL 24, 2018
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
LAURA JEAN TAYLOR,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 34935-7-III
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
KORSMO, J. -Laura Taylor appeals her conviction for possession of a controlled
substance, methamphetamine, arguing that the trial court erred in failing to grant her a
hearing pursuant to Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154, 98 S. Ct. 2674, 57 L. Ed. 2d 667
(1978). Because the trial court correctly determined that neither of the challenged
omissions were material, we affirm.
At issue is methamphetamine discovered in Ms. Taylor's purse pursuant to a
search warrant issued to look for stolen property that might be found in the purse. 1 In
limited circumstances, the information contained in or omitted from a search warrant can
be challenged. Id. at 155-156. When information was deliberately or recklessly excluded
1 Ms. Taylor also was charged with one count of third degree possession of stolen
property. The jury was unable to return a verdict on that count and it is not at issue in
this appeal.

No. 34935-7-III
State v. Taylor
2
from an affidavit, a court is to add the information to the warrant and determine if
probable cause still exists. Id. at 171-172. If there is still probable cause, the motion will
be denied.2 Id. at 172. If there no longer is probable cause, then the challenger is entitled
to a hearing to attempt to establish the contention that the information was known to
police and required to be included in the affidavit. Id.
We review a trial court’s decision to deny a Franks hearing for abuse of
discretion. State v. Wolken, 103 Wn.2d 823, 829, 700 P.2d 319 (1985). A search warrant
is presumed valid. State v. Chenoweth, 160 Wn.2d 454, 477, 158 P.3d 595 (2007). The
decision to issue a warrant is a discretionary action and, thus, doubts are resolved in favor
of the warrant. Id.; State v. Vickers, 148 Wn.2d 91, 108-109, 59 P.3d 58 (2002).
The search warrant issued here for a purse belonging to Ms. Taylor that had been
discovered inside a larger purse that (allegedly) did not belong to her. The officer
checking for Ms. Taylor’s purse had discovered the smaller purse inside the larger bag,
but that information was not included in the search warrant, nor was the fact that no
stolen property or weapons were observed in either purse during pre-warrant search. Ms.
Taylor contends these were both important pieces of information for the issuing
magistrate to consider.
2 The same approach applies to false information that was deliberately or
recklessly included in the affidavit—delete the information and determine if probable
cause still exists. Franks, 438 U.S. at 171-172.

No. 34935-7-III
State v. Taylor
3
The trial court, however, determined the matters were not material in the Franks
meaning of the term. We agree. Even if the omitted facts had been included, probable
cause still existed to search the purse. Indeed, Ms. Taylor does not argue to the contrary.
The search warrant explained how she was contacted outside a mobile home from which
fixtures and other property had illegally been removed and told officers that her purse
was inside the residence. The warrant authorized police to search her purse and her
vehicle to recover items that might have been removed from the home.3
Adding in language describing that Ms. Taylor’s purse allegedly was within
someone else’s purse does not alter the determination of probable cause related to her
purse. The warrant specifically requested authority to search Ms. Taylor’s purse located
in the mobile home. It specifically limited police to that container. Identifying that there
was a second bag might have been useful in determining whether the other bag should be
searched or not, but the police only requested authority to search Ms. Taylor’s purse, not
the larger bag. The information did not relate to the question of whether authority should
be granted to search Ms. Taylor’s purse. It was not material under Franks.
3 The affidavit also reported that when booked into the jail, items found in Ms.
Taylor’s pockets included an Allen wrench, screws, and washers. She told the officer
that the items had come from the mobile home.

No. 34935-7-III
State v. Taylor
4
Similarly, the fact that officers searched the purse without reporting discovery of
any stolen property was not material to the question of whether probable cause existed.
Even if a clearer statement of the initial purse search was included in the affidavit,4
probable cause still existed to search the purse. Ms. Taylor was caught at the scene;
efforts had been made to remove fixtures from the home; she had a tool for unfastening
items as well as fasteners she had removed from the house. It was reasonable to believe
that more such items might be found in the purse. Explicitly adding that a search for
identification had not uncovered any stolen property simply did not eliminate probable
cause to search the purse.5
The trial court correctly concluded that the alleged omissions were not material
under Franks. There was no abuse of discretion by denying the request for a hearing.
4 Whether this information was omitted from the affidavit is a questionable
assertion. The affidavit in support of the search warrant does report that an officer
removed Ms. Taylor’s purse from the mobile home and obtained her identification from
the purse. Clerk’s Papers at 16. From that statement, a magistrate could (1) infer that the
officer did search the purse to some degree and, (2) since the officer did not report
recovering any stolen property, the magistrate also could infer that none was observed.
5 Details concerning the scope of the search were not provided, so we have no
information how thoroughly the purse was searched.

No. 34935-7-III
State v. Taylor
The conviction is affirmed.
A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the
Washington Appellate Reports, but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW
2.06.040.
WE CONCUR:
5