Skip to main content
No photo

Stephen Trinen’s Legal Cases

4 total

  • State v. Puapuaga, 164 Wash.2d 515 (2008).

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Sep 18, 2008
    Outcome:
    Affirmed
    Description:
    Defendant was charged with second-degree murder and as pretrial detainee was transferred to Western State Hospital for competency evaluation whereupon he was found to improperly be in possession of discovery materials he had not been authorized to possess. Defendant filed motion for immediate return of property and for dismissal of criminal prosecution, alleging State had obtained ex parte orders to seize personal property that had been inventoried by hospital staff when defendant had arrived at hospital. The superior court, denied the motion and appointed a special master to review the seized items in camera, to protect any privileged materials. Direct discretionary review was granted. The Supreme Court held that: (1) defendant did not have a protected privacy interest, under state Constitution, and (2) even assuming that State acted improperly by obtaining ex parte orders to seize personal property, dismissal of second-degree murder charge was not warranted. Affirmed.
  • State v. Fry (WA Supreme Court) (amicus brief and oral argument), 168 Wash.2d 1 (2010)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Jan 21, 2010
    Outcome:
    Conviction affirmed.
    Description:
    Plurality opinion. Defendant presented a claimed medical marijuana certificate to officers serving a search warrant. On appeal the defendant claimed that the certificate defeated probable cause to serve the warrant. Although the court was split as to the reasoning, a majority of the court affirmed the conviction.
  • State v. Millan (Consolidated with State v. Wright), 171 Wash.2d 292 (2011)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Apr 14, 2011
    Outcome:
    Remanded for further proceedings, resulting the in the conviction being affirmed.
    Description:
    May suppression issues be raised for the first time on appeal where there has been an intervening change in the law as a result of Arizona v. Gant and its Washington progeny
  • State v. Snapp, 174 Wash.2d 177 (2012)

    Practice Area:
    Appeals
    Date:
    Apr 05, 2012
    Outcome:
    Remanded for further proceedings
    Description:
    The court held that unlike the federal Constitution, under Art. I, sec. 7 of the Washington Constitution there is not a separate exception allowing an officer to search a vehicle for evidence of the crime of arrest pursuant to the lawful arrest of the driver.