STATE v. VALENTINE, 152 Wn. App. 1015 (2009)

No. 37756-0-II.The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division Two.
September 15, 2009.

Appeal from the Superior Court, Grays Harbor County, No. 07-1-00491-5, F. Mark McCauley, J., entered May 19, 2008.

Affirmed by unpublished opinion per Bridgewater, J., concurred in by Van Deren, C.J., and Hunt, J.

BRIDGEWATER, J.

Kenneth J. Valentine appeals his Grays Harbor County conviction for possession of methamphetamine.[1] He contends that the trial court erred in refusing to suppress evidence obtained in a search of his person incident to his arrest for driving with a suspended license. The arrest, he asserts, was illegal because it was not supported by probable cause. We affirm.

FACTS
During the week of August 20, 2007, Officer Darrin Wallace contacted Valentine and discovered that he was driving with a suspended license. Accordingly, when he saw Valentine’s white Honda Civic on September 3, 2007, he pulled behind the vehicle to do a records check.[2] Before he could do so, however, Valentine turned into a parking lot. Officer Wallace activated his lights and followed.

Valentine got out of his car and “was going” to walk away, but Officer Wallace approached and asked him why he was still driving with a suspended license. RP (Apr. 7, 2008) at 8. Valentine replied that he had taken his car for a drive because he had just gotten the power back on, and he was on his way home. Wallace arrested him for driving while license suspended. In the search incident to arrest, he found a small Ziploc baggie containing what proved to be methamphetamine in the pocket of Valentine’s pants. Officer Wallace did not run a records check on Valentine’s license until after he had arrested him.

ANALYSIS
Valentine argues that Officer Wallace did not have probable cause for the arrest because his information about the suspended license was stale. A warrantless arrest must be based on probable cause. State v. Grande, 164 Wn.2d 135, 140-41, 187 P.3d 248 (2008). Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances known by the arresting officer are sufficient in themselves to justify a belief by a man of “reasonable caution” that an offense has been or is being committed. State v. Gluck, 83 Wn.2d 424, 426-27, 518 P.2d 703 (1974).

Probable cause has a “durational aspect”, and at some point, information becomes stale. United States v. Hython, 443 F.3d 480, 486 (6th Cir. 2006). It is not stale if the facts and circumstances support a commonsense determination that there is “continuing and contemporaneous” criminal activity State v. Maddox, 152 Wn.2d 499, 505-06, 98 P.3d 1199
(2004).

Under very similar circumstances, we have held that knowledge of a suspended license that is a week old is not stale State v. Perea, 85 Wn. App. 339, 932 P.2d 1258 (1997). The difference in time between one week and two weeks is not significant. Neither the small additional amount of time, nor the fact of the earlier contact with Officer Wallace was substantially likely to have changed Valentine’s driving status. Moreover, when Officer Wallace confronted Valentine about driving with a suspended license, Valentine did not deny the suspension, but instead offered an explanation. This reaction to the officer’s statement could reasonably be interpreted as confirmation that Valentine’s license remained suspended. The facts and circumstances known to Officer Wallace justified the arrest. The trial court properly admitted the evidence discovered.

Affirmed.

A majority of the panel has determined this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports but it will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040.

HUNT, J. and VAN DEREN, C.J., Concur.

Page 1016