 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Davenport5/11/2004
te v. Contreras, 92 Wn. App. 307, 319, 966 P.2d 915 (1998). He cannot demonstrate that the court would have granted the motion to suppress here.
Davenport asserts that no exigent circumstances supported his arrest. We disagree. A warrantless entry and arrest may be supported when: (1) it involves a grave offense, particularly a violent crime; (2) a reasonable belief supports concluding that the suspect is armed; (3) reasonably trustworthy information supports the suspect's guilt; (4) strong evidence supports believing that the suspect remains on the premises; (5) the suspect will likely escape if not swiftly apprehended; and (6) peaceable entry. State v. Terrovona, 105 Wn.2d 632, 644, 716 P.2d 295 (1986) (citing Dorman v. United States, 435 F.2d 385, 392-93 (D.C. Cir. 1970)), cert. denied sub nom. Terrovona v. Kincheloe, 499 U.S. 979 (1991). Here, the record supports all six factors and Davenport's claim based on ineffective assistance of counsel fails.
Affirmed.
A majority of the panel having determined that this opinion will not be printed in the Washington Appellate Reports, but will be filed for public record pursuant to RCW 2.06.040, it is so ordered.
Houghton, P.J.
We concur:
Bridgewater, J.
Armstrong, J.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|