## Facts

- A police officer stopped Thomas Harry Eaton for driving without headlights, conducted field sobriety tests, and arrested him for DUI.
- Eaton was advised of his rights and transported to the Clark County Jail.
- During booking, jail staff searched Eaton and found a plastic bag taped to the top of his sock; testing identified methamphetamine.
- The State charged Eaton with DUI and possession of a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and sought a sentence enhancement for possessing a controlled substance “in a jail or prison.”
- A jury convicted Eaton on both counts and returned a special verdict finding he possessed methamphetamine “in a county jail.”
- The trial court applied the enhancement, increasing Eaton’s sentence above the standard range.
- The Court of Appeals reversed only the enhancement, concluding the State failed to prove Eaton voluntarily acted to be in the jail while possessing the methamphetamine.
- The Washington Supreme Court granted review limited to the enhancement; the underlying convictions were not at issue.

## Issues

1. Whether the sentencing enhancement for possessing a controlled substance “in a jail or prison” requires proof that the defendant took a volitional act to place himself within the jail or prison while in possession.
2. Whether the State proved that volitional-placement requirement where the defendant was arrested and taken to jail by law enforcement while already in possession.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals and vacated the sentencing enhancement.
- The court held the enhancement requires proof the defendant took a volitional act to place himself in the enhancement zone (jail or prison) while possessing the controlled substance.
- The State proved Eaton possessed methamphetamine and that it was discovered at the jail, but did not prove Eaton voluntarily placed himself in the jail while possessing it.
- Eaton’s convictions for DUI and possession of a controlled substance remained intact; only the enhanced portion of the sentence was reversed.

## Legal Principles

- Location-based sentencing enhancements for drug possession in a jail or prison require, in addition to possession and presence, proof of a voluntary act connecting the defendant to being in the enhancement location while in possession.
- Absent clear legislative direction to punish purely compelled conduct, courts construe criminal enhancements consistently with the general requirement that criminal punishment rests on voluntary action.
- A defendant’s compelled transport to jail following arrest, without evidence of voluntary conduct intended to place the defendant in jail while possessing contraband, does not satisfy the enhancement’s volitional component.

## Conclusion

The court limited the jail-or-prison drug-possession enhancement to cases where the State proves the defendant voluntarily placed himself in the correctional setting while possessing the controlled substance; mere discovery of drugs during booking after compelled transport to jail does not support the enhancement.


State v. Eaton, 229 P.3d 704 (Wash. 2010)