State v. Miller

Full title: STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Daniel J. MILLER, Appellant.

Court: Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2

Date published: Aug 28, 1998

961 P.2d 973 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998)

Opinion

961 P.2d 973 (Wash.App. Div. 2 1998) STATE of Washington, Respondent, v. Daniel J. MILLER, Appellant. No. 21183-1-II. Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 2. August 28, 1998

       Prior report: 91 Wash.App. 181, 955 P.2d 810.

       ORDER TO AMEND OPINION

       THE COURT, on its own motion, amends the opinion filed May 22, 1998, 91 Wash.App. 181, 955 P.2d 810 in the above entitled action as follows:

       On page 3, [page 812, 2nd column, line 13 from top of 955 P.2d], following the cite for Arkansas v. Sanders, 442 U.S. 753, 759, 99 S.Ct. 2586, 61 L.Ed.2d 235 (1979), the following is added:

, overruled on other grounds by California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991).

       On page 4, [page 813, 1st column, line 16 from bottom of 955 P.2d], the last sentence in the first full paragraph is hereby deleted and the following sentence inserted:

Here, the frisk was a valid protective search as McCroskey, already suspicious of Miller for the reasons described above, had cause to fear for his safety.

/s/ Seinfeld, J.

Seinfeld, J.

       HOUGHTON, C.J., and HUNT J., concur.