# State v. Ryland

> Court of Appeals of Washington · May 26, 1992 · 65 Wash. App. 806

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626581

## Case

- **Full name:** The State of Washington, Respondent, v. Jaysen O.K. Ryland, Appellant
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Washington
- **Decided:** May 26, 1992
- **Citations:** 65 Wash. App. 806; 829 P.2d 806; 1992 Wash. App. LEXIS 236
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Agid
- **Judges:** Webster, Agid
- **Cited by:** 3 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626581

## Opinion text

Agid, J. (dissenting)
I dissent from the court's disposition of this case. In my view, it should be remanded to the trial court for a hearing to determine whether the officer reasonably believed that the house guest had authority to consent to entry. All this court knows about the circumstances of the entry is that the arrest occurred very early in the morning and that the person who consented to entry was asleep at the time the officer knocked on the door looking for Ryland. Both of these circumstances are consistent with his being an occupant of the house and, under State v. Williamson, 42 Wn. App. 208 , 710 P.2d 205 (1985), a person who can consent to the officer's entry. However, at the suppression hearing in this case, neither the trial court nor the parties considered whether the house guest had apparent authority to consent to the officer's entry.
In addition, the United States Supreme Court announced its decision in Illinois v. Rodriguez, 497 U.S. 177 , 111 L. Ed. 2d 148 , 110 S. Ct. 2793 (1990), several months after the hearing below. In Rodriguez , the Supreme Court held that the trial court should determine whether "'. . . the facts available to the officer at the moment [of entry] . . . "warrant a man of reasonable caution in the belief"' that the consenting party had authority over the premises". 497 U.S. at 188 (quoting Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 21-22 , 20 L. Ed. *811 2d 889 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 (1968)). Because the Rodriguez Court could not ascertain from the record what the trial court's evaluation of this question would be, it remanded for a hearing to make this determination. This court should do the same thing here. We simply do not have a record on which to rule out application of the apparent authority doctrine adopted in Rodriguez . It is imprudent to reverse a conviction under these circumstances.
Review granted and remanded at 120 Wn.2d 325 (1992).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9626581. Public record. Not legal advice.