Race Must Be Considered In Police Stops And Seizures: WA Supreme Court

OLYMPIA, WA — Courts must consider the race and ethnicity of a civilian, as well as the history of racially biased policing in America, when determining if a police stop or seizure was lawful, according to a landmark new ruling from the Washington State Supreme Court.

"Today, we formally recognize what has always been true: in interactions with law enforcement, race and ethnicity matter," wrote Justice Mary Yu. "Therefore, courts must consider the race and ethnicity of the allegedly seized person as part of the totality of the circumstances when deciding whether there was a seizure."

The Supreme Court reached the decision unanimously, and formally filed its opinion Thursday.

The ruling is the conclusion of State of Washington v. Palla Sum, a case sparked by a confrontation between Sum and law enforcement in Tacoma. On April 9, 2019, Sum had been sleeping in a Honda Civic parked along the side of the road, when he was approached by Pierce County Sheriff’s Deputy Mark Rickerson. According to court documents, the vehicle was not parked illegally, and officers ran its plates and found that it had not been reported stolen, but still approached Sum and began to question him about the vehicle. They also asked for his personal identification.

Sum gave the officer a false name, and when Rickerson stepped away to check records, Sum drove the Civic away, over the sidewalk and into a yard before crashing.

He was arrested shortly afterwards and charged with unlawful possession of a firearm in the first degree, attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, and making a false or misleading statement to a public servant. In court, Sum and attorneys filed a motion to render his statements to Rickerson inadmissible, arguing that he had been unlawfully seized without reasonable suspicion when Deputy Rickerson requested his identification while also implying he was under investigation for car theft.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court ruled in Sum's favor, saying that Sum had the right to refuse Rickerson but, considering the country's long history of discriminatory policing, it was reasonable to assume officers would have continued to interrogate him regardless.

"Based on the totality of the circumstances, an objective observer could easily conclude that if Sum had refused to identify himself and requested to be left alone, Deputy Rickerson would have failed to honor Sum’s request because the deputy was investigating Sum for car theft," Yu wrote. "In other words, an objective observer could conclude that Sum was not free to refuse Deputy Rickerson’s request due to the deputy’s display of authority. At that point, Sum was seized. As the State correctly concedes, this seizure was not supported by a warrant, reasonable suspicion, or any other authority of law."