Defense urges reversal, prosecutor defends brief vehicle peek in Solomon appeal

Mr. Gratz, attorney for Jeremy Solomon, told the court that police "unconstitutionally invaded" Solomon's private affairs and urged reversal of a firearms conviction after the trial court denied a suppression motion. The defense contended that the facts did not meet the narrow, last-resort standard for exigent circumstances that would permit a warrantless entry into Solomon's vehicle.

The issue matters because the panel must decide whether a deputy's brief inspection of a parked truck was a constitutionally protected intrusion that tainted later evidence, or whether that minimal look was justified by an immediate risk to officer safety and in any event followed an independent source of probable cause. The outcome could affect how courts balance officer safety and privacy when multiple possible weapon locations are present.

In argument, Mr. Gratz acknowledged there was a safety concern that officers regarded Solomon as potentially volatile after a witness reportedly mentioned "suicide by cop," but he said that caution alone did not justify searching the truck. "Whether exigent circumstances justified intrusion into the vehicle, that's where the dispute lies," he told the court, arguing judges should assess whether the police action invaded a constitutionally protected area rather than compare it to other things the police might have done.

A judge on the panel asked whether it would have been less intrusive and safer for officers to frisk Solomon first rather than look inside the vehicle: "Isn't it less of an intrusion to look under the seat in the car than it is to search the defendant?" the judge asked. Mr. Gratz responded that the relevant legal inquiry is what the officers actually did and that the exigent-circumstances exception is an exception of last resort; he said a Terry frisk could have dispelled the immediate safety concern without entering the vehicle.

Jennifer Joseph, Whatcom County deputy prosecuting attorney, defended the officers' actions. She told the court that in a rapidly evolving scene the "very best way, easiest way, fastest way, most direct way, least intrusive way was to look to make sure the object the police officer already believed to be a gun was in fact the gun." Joseph argued that Officer Leach's minimal peek and subsequent decision to close the vehicle and obtain judicial authorization fit within the independent-source framework (the state cited precedent in argument) and that the record showed independent probable cause existed before any warrant was sought.

The panel questioned timing and record details, including whether officers knew Solomon's felon status before Officer Leach opened the vehicle; Joseph said that information was available to officers beforehand. Mr. Gratz countered in rebuttal that the trial record was "sketchy," noting a trial-court finding that, after Deputy Leach located the gun, he "takes no further action," which, the defense said, undercuts the state's urgency justification.

The court took the case under advisement after argument. No ruling was announced at the hearing; the panel will issue its decision in due course.