Appeals panel hears challenge to trooper stop of Michael Bryant at weigh station

An appellate panel heard arguments Wednesday in State of Washington v. Michael Bryant over whether a trooper lawfully stopped a commercial truck before it failed to exit to a weigh station, a question that defense counsel said would limit when officers may seize drivers for anticipated traffic infractions.

"My client, in this particular case, was in lane 1 prior to the exit when he was seized," said Ryan Robertson, counsel for appellant Michael Bryant, arguing the seizure occurred before any citable infraction and that courts should not expand Terry-stop doctrine to permit stops based on a belief that a driver may commit an infraction in the future.

Robertson told the panel he was asking the court to reverse the superior-court ruling and reinstate a trial-court dismissal of a DUI charge. He cited cases he said limit police stops to situations where an officer has reasonable articulable suspicion that an infraction is occurring in the officer's presence and distinguished precedent involving criminal, rather than traffic, conduct.

The State, represented by Patrick Redick, deputy prosecuting attorney, urged the panel to affirm the lower court. "Trooper Clark had reasonable articulable suspicion and belief that Mr. Bryant was about to commit a violation of RCW [as cited in the record]," Redick told the panel, pointing to the trooper's training as a commercial-vehicle inspector, the presence of signage and a weigh-in-motion system, and a video in the record showing vehicle movement and lane choice.

Redick said an oral credibility finding that Trooper Clark was "totally credible" supports the State's account and that, under the totality of the circumstances, the trooper could have formed a reasonable suspicion that Bryant would not comply with the weigh-station requirement.

The bench tested counsel with hypotheticals — for example, whether officers must wait until a driver actually crosses into a school zone or misses an exit before stopping them — and discussed buffer zones, signage, and the practicalities of commercial-vehicle enforcement. At one point a panel member asked whether officers must wait for a clear infraction to occur or could act on a reasonable belief that an infraction was imminent.

Counsel also debated procedural limits on the appeal. The panel and both parties agreed the district-court factual findings in the record operate as verities on appeal, so the court would be constrained to the trial-court findings and the parties' challenged conclusions of law. The State asked the court to consider oral findings that do not conflict with written findings to supplement the record.

The hearing record shows the parties discussed statutory bases in the briefing and on oral argument (transcript contains references to RCW provisions, including a duty-to-obey-traffic-sign statute cited by counsel). The transcript's numeric citations to statutes are not fully consistent in the record; counsel argued alternative statutory grounds in the event the panel does not adopt the State's primary theory.

After rebuttal and brief follow-up questions, the panel took the case under submission. No decision was announced at the hearing.

Next steps: the Court of Appeals will issue a written decision after reviewing the briefs and the oral arguments.