No. 51873-9-I.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division One.
Filed: March 22, 2004. UNPUBLISHED OPINION
Appeal from Superior Court of King County. Docket No. 02-8-05245-4. Judgment or order under review. Date filed: 02/03/2003. Judge signing: Hon. Dale Ramerman.
Counsel for Appellant(s), Nielsen Broman Koch Pllc, Attorney at Law, 1908 E Madison St, Seattle, WA 98122.
Counsel for Respondent(s), Prosecuting Atty King County, King County Prosecutor/appellate Unit, 1850 Key Tower, 700 Fifth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98104.
Laura Ann Petregal, King County Prosecutors Office, W554 King County Courthouse, 516 3rd Ave, Seattle, WA 98104.
Per Curiam.
Jacob Burlingame contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him and that the juvenile court should therefore have suppressed the evidence seized in a search incident to the arrest. We conclude there was probable cause to arrest and affirm the disposition for one count of possession of methamphetamine.
Burlingame was charged with one count of possession of methamphetamine based on evidence seized in a search incident to his arrest on an unrelated matter. Prior to the factfinding hearing, Burlingame moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that police lacked probable cause to arrest.
At the CrR 3.6 hearing, Seattle Police Officer Timothy Renihan testified that he was on routine patrol on December 22, 2002, when he saw Burlingame walking on the street. Officer Renihan knew Burlingame from a prior encounter and recognized him as the subject of a current “criminal information bulletin” posted at the precinct station. The bulletin stated that there was probable cause to arrest Burlingame for felony harassment based on evidence that he had been armed with a shotgun and had told a roommate that he would “shoot police” if his “freedom was compromised.” Officer Renihan arrested Burlingame based on the information in the bulletin. During a search of Burlingame incident to the arrest, officers recovered several bags of methamphetamine.
Detective Linda Dolane testified that she conducted the investigation that resulted in the bulletin. On December 3, 2002, Alan Eskenazy called the police and spoke with Det. Dolane. Eskenazy reported that Burlingame, who had been staying in his apartment, had decided to leave. As Burlingame was packing his belongings, Eskenazy saw him pack a shotgun into a white box. Burlingame told Eskenazy that he owned the gun and that he would he would “shoot the police” if “his freedom were compromised.”
On the following day, December 4, 2002, Eskenazy called the police again and reported that Burlingame had returned to the apartment and was trying to enter. When police officers responded to the call, they discovered a loaded shotgun near Eskenazy’s van.
Based on the results of Det. Dolane’s investigation, another officer prepared the criminal information bulletin about the incident. Det. Dolane testified that after the bulletin was prepared, she continued to pursue the investigation and that the information in the bulletin was still current as of December 22, 2002.
The juvenile court concluded that under the “fellow officer rule,” Officer Renihan had probable cause to arrest Burlingame and denied the motion to suppress. The court then adjudicated Burlingame guilty as charged on the basis of stipulated evidence.
On appeal, Burlingame contends that the police lacked probable cause to arrest him for felony harassment and that the evidence seized incident to his arrest should therefore be suppressed. Burlingame’s sole argument on appeal is that the police lacked probable cause because his threat “to shoot” a police officer did not constitute a threat “to kill” as required by the felony harassment statute. See RCW 9A.46.020(2)(b).
Probable cause to arrest exists when the arresting officer is aware of facts and circumstances, based on reasonably trustworthy information, sufficient to cause a reasonable person to believe a crime has been or is being committed. State v. Greene, 97 Wn. App. 473, 478, 983 P.2d 1190
(1999). Under the “fellow officer” rule, the arresting officer may rely on what other officers or police agencies know. State v. Mance, 82 Wn. App. 539, 542, 918 P.2d 527 (1996) (fellow officer rule justifies arrest on the basis of police “hot sheet” bulletin if the issuing police agency has sufficient information to provide probable cause).
In this case, the police were aware that Burlingame possessed a shotgun and had told his roommate that he would “shoot” the police if his freedom were compromised. On the following day, police officers recovered the shotgun and found that it was loaded. Under the circumstances, a reasonable person could understand Burlingame’s threat to shoot the police with a shotgun as a threat to kill. The nature of a threat must be assessed in light of all the facts and circumstances; “it is not proper to limit the inquiry to a literal translation of the words spoken.” State v. C.G., 150 Wn.2d 604, 611, 80 P.3d 594 (2003). Consequently, Burlingame’s challenge to probable cause fails.
Affirmed.
BECKER and AGID, concurs.