## Facts

- At about 11:00 p.m., a Richland police officer in a marked patrol car saw Dustin Harrington walking on a sidewalk, made a U-turn, drove ahead, and stopped in a driveway without lights or siren.
- The officer approached and asked to talk; Harrington agreed, and they stood several feet apart without the officer physically blocking Harrington’s path.
- The officer questioned Harrington about where he was coming from; Harrington gave answers the officer found suspicious and appeared nervous, with bulges in his pockets.
- Harrington repeatedly placed his hands in his pockets despite the officer’s repeated requests to keep them out.
- A state trooper drove by, made a U-turn, parked, and stood nearby without activating lights or speaking.
- The officer asked to frisk Harrington for “officer safety”; whether Harrington consented was disputed.
- During the pat-down, the officer felt a hard cylindrical object; Harrington identified it as a methamphetamine pipe.
- The officer arrested Harrington; a search incident to arrest yielded a glass pipe and methamphetamine.
- The trial court denied suppression and convicted Harrington on stipulated facts; the Court of Appeals affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether, considering the officers’ conduct as a whole, Harrington was seized without lawful authority in violation of article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution (and the Fourth Amendment).
2. If an unlawful seizure occurred, whether Harrington’s purported consent to a pat-down was voluntary or tainted, requiring suppression of the physical evidence.

## Decision

- The Washington Supreme Court reversed.
- The Court held the officers’ actions, considered cumulatively, constituted an unlawful seizure under article I, section 7 because they progressively intruded into Harrington’s private affairs without authority of law.
- The Court held that any consent to the pat-down obtained during the unlawful detention was invalid.
- The Court suppressed the pipe and methamphetamine and ordered dismissal of the charge.

## Legal Principles

- Under article I, section 7, police may not disturb a person’s private affairs without authority of law; the analysis is independent of federal Fourth Amendment doctrine.
- Whether a police-citizen encounter is a seizure depends on the totality of circumstances; courts must consider the cumulative effect of police conduct rather than isolating individual steps.
- Repeated directions controlling a person’s movements, the arrival and proximity of an additional officer, and escalation to a request for a frisk framed as “officer safety” can collectively communicate that compliance is expected, converting an encounter into a seizure.
- Nervousness, late-night walking, inconsistent answers, bulging pockets, and hands in pockets, without more, may be insufficient to establish reasonable, articulable suspicion justifying a detention under article I, section 7.
- Consent obtained through exploitation of an unlawful seizure is not valid, and resulting evidence is subject to suppression as fruit of the unlawful police conduct.

## Conclusion

The court held that “social contact” may become an unlawful detention when officers progressively escalate control without reasonable suspicion; because Harrington was unlawfully seized, the ensuing pat-down consent was ineffective and the drug evidence was suppressed, requiring dismissal.


State v. Harrington, 167 Wn.2d 656, 222 P.3d 92 (Wash. 2009)