I L En. This opinion was filed for record
X IN CLERKS OFFICE ^ _
8UPRBE COURT.SWIE OF 1«A8H9«3T0M at */('CO OnHn/} JlCh It) I'S
i date mar 1 5 2018 ^ ^
ctnEF JUSTICE
.COj • C^u?4^ Ca C^jU.
SUSAN L. CARLSON
SUPREME COURT CLERK
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent, No. 93845-8
V.
EN BANC
CURTIS LAMONT CORNWELL,
Petitioner. Filed: ^ ^
YU,J.—It is well established that an individual on probation has a reduced
expectation of privacy, and a community corrections officer(CCO)may conduct a
warrantless search if he or she suspects the individual has violated a probation
condition. The issue in this case is whether there are any limitations on the scope
of the CCO's search. We hold that article I, section 7 of the Washington
Constitution requires a nexus between the property searched and the suspected
probation violation. There was no nexus in the search at issue here. Accordingly,
we reverse the Court of Appeals and Comwell's convictions.
State V. Cornwell, No. 93845-8
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
In September 2013, petitioner Curtis Lament Cornwell was placed on
probation.^ His judgment and sentence allowed his probation officer to impose
conditions of his release, which included the following provision:
I am aware that I am subject to search and seizure of my person,
residence, automobile, or other personal property if there is reasonable
cause on the part ofthe Department of Corrections to believe that I
have violated the conditions/requirements or instructions above.
Ex. 4, at 3. Cornwell failed to report to the Department of Corrections(DOC)in
violation of his probation, and DOC subsequently issued a warrant for his arrest.
Cornwell first came to the attention of Tacoma Police Department Officer
Randy Frisbie and CCO Thomas Grabski because of a distinctive Chevrolet Monte
Carlo observed outside a house suspected of being a site for drug sales and
prostitution. CCO Grabski later spoke with the registered owner ofthe vehicle,
who said that she had given the car to Cornwell to drive but she wanted it back.
Unfamiliar with Cornwell, one of the officers conducted a records check and
determined he had an outstanding warrant.
In late November 2014, at approximately 1:00 a.m.. Officer Frisbie spotted
the Monte Carlo while on patrol with Officer Patrick Patterson, another member of
'The trial court judge did not make findings of fact or conclusions oflaw at the CrR 3.6
hearing, and so the following facts are based on testimony presented at the hearing unless
otherwise noted.
State V. Cornwell, No. 93845-8
the Tacoma Police Department. Officer Frisbie testified that he intended to stop
the vehicle because he believed Cornwell was driving it and he had an outstanding
warrant. He did not initiate the stop based on any belief that the car contained
drugs or a gun or because he observed a traffic violation.
Before Officer Frisbie could activate his police lights, the car pulled into a
driveway and Cornwell began to exit it. Cornwell ignored Officer Frisbie's orders
to stay in the vehicle, and Officer Frisbie believed Cornwell was attempting to
distance himself from the car. Officer Frisbie then ordered Cornwell to the ground.
Cornwell started to lower himself in apparent compliance before jumping up and
running. Cornwell was apprehended after both officers deployed their lasers. He
had $1,573 on his person at the time of arrest.
After securing Cornwell, Officer Patterson called CCO Grabski to the scene.
CCO Grabski testified that his job is "to help apprehend fligitives of[DOC]as well
as to look into violations of people that are on probation." 1 Verbatim Report of
Proceedings(VRP)(Dec. 16, 2014) at 82. He testified that he believed Comwell's
warrant was for his failure to report to DOC because "that's pretty much why
there's a warrant in the system is they failed to report to [DOC]." Id. at 113.
Asked if he could think of another reason a warrant would issue, he said,"I can't
think of anything that would be different." Id.
State V. Cornwell, No. 93845-8
Upon arrival at the arrest scene, CCO Grabski searched the Monte Carlo.
He described the basis for his search as follows:
When people are in violation of probation, they're subject to search.
So he's driving a vehicle, he has a felony warrant for his arrest by
[DOC] which is in violation of his probation. He's driving the
vehicle, he has the ability to access to enter the vehicle, so I'm
searching the car to make sure there's no further violations of his
probation.
Id. at 93. He explained,"If there is anything in the vehicle, whether it is in a
suitcase, clothing, I'm going to go through those items." Id. at 94. In this case,
CCO Grabski found a black nylon bag sitting on the front seat ofthe car. The bag
contained oxycodone, amphetamine and methamphetamine pills, sim cards, and
small spoons. A cell phone was also found in the car.
Comwell moved pursuant to CrR 3.6 to suppress the evidence obtained
during the vehicle search. In denying the motion, the trial court stated that any
subjective expectation of privacy Comwell had "was not.. . objectively
reasonable" given that he was on probation and had signed conditions of release
that reflected his reduced expectation of privacy. /