Opinion
No. 56349-1-I.
November 19, 2007.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 05-1-04274-1, Helen Halpert, J., entered May 5, 2005.
Reversed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Duah appeals his conviction for possession of cocaine, arguing that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress evidence seized following a search of a motel guest registry. We stayed this appeal pending the Washington State Supreme Court's decision in State v. Jorden, 160 Wn.2d 121, 131, 156 P.3d 893 (2007). The stay has been lifted. We reverse.
The Jorden court held that "[i]nformation contained in a motel registry constitutes a private affair under article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution" and "[a]bsent a valid exception to the prohibition against warrantless searches, random viewing of a motel registry violates article I, section 7. . . ." As the State concedes, the facts in this case "mirror those in Jorden [.]" Under Jorden, then, the search of the motel registry in this case was unlawful and the evidence seized during the subsequent searches of Duah's motel room and person must be suppressed.
Brief of Respondent, at 23.
The State asserts in a footnote that Duah did not challenge the search of the registry below and suggests that he cannot raise it for the first time on appeal. Because this assertion is made in a footnote, we decline to consider it. State v. Johnson, 69 Wn. App. 189, 194 n. 4, 847 P.2d 960 (1993) (placing an argument in a footnote is, at best, ambiguous or equivocal as to whether the argument is part of the appeal, and this court may decline to address an argument presented in this fashion).
We note there is authority indicating that Duah can raise this claim for the first time on appeal.
State v. Brown, 132 Wn.2d 529, 580, 940 P.2d 546 (1997) ("Although appellant's trial counsel did not move to suppress his statements . . . on the grounds of inadequate advisement of Miranda[v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966)] rights, Appellant may nevertheless raise this issue for the first time on appeal.").
The conviction is reversed. Given this disposition, it is unnecessary to address Duah's other arguments on appeal.