Appeals court hears arguments over alleged unlawful seizure and jail-garb prejudice in State v. Deborah Blackburn

At oral argument before Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals, counsel for appellant Deborah Kate Blackburn asked the panel to reverse her conviction and suppress evidence she says was obtained in violation of her Fourth Amendment and Washington Constitution article I, section 7 rights during a home search on Oct. 26, 2023. Christine Tan of the Washington Appellate Project told the court she would focus on the suppression issue and said officers’ conduct restrained Blackburn’s freedom of movement.

"On two separate circumstances, on 10/26/2023, law enforcement agents violated Deborah Blackburn's Fourth Amendment, article I, section 7, right to be free from unlawful seizure without reasonable suspicion," Tan said, arguing the trial court should order suppression of evidence obtained in violation of Blackburn’s constitutional rights. Tan told the panel that at least seven officers from three different teams entered Blackburn’s home, some armed or in tactical gear with a narcotics canine, and that the officers repeatedly required Blackburn to ask permission to move about her house.

Tan divided her seizure argument into three categories: the display of authority, the absence of any advisement that Blackburn was free to leave, and close monitoring of her movements. She said the record contains no finding that officers told Blackburn she could leave and pointed to instances where she asked to go to the bathroom, change clothes or feed chickens and was told to wait or asked permission.

"They were turning her house upside down looking for signs of drugs," Tan said, adding that the officers’ numbers and the canine’s alert supported a reasonable-person finding that Blackburn was restrained.

Jesse Nations, representing the State of Washington, contended the seizure inquiry is an objective test and that the record shows Blackburn was not the focus of the investigation. Nations said officers initially asked her to remain on the couch but otherwise did not restrict her movements: she changed clothes, used the bathroom, went outside to feed chickens and ultimately opened a safe in what Nations described as a voluntary act before any custodial moment.

"She was able to move about the house with ease," Nations said. "She changed her clothes … she went to the bathroom … and she even left the building. She's outside feeding her chickens." He acknowledged a custody question could arise when officers asked her to open the safe, but urged the court that the trial court’s suppression ruling was correct.

The panel pressed both sides on whether the officers’ subjective intent matters if that intent was not conveyed to Blackburn and asked when, under the totality of the circumstances, a reasonable person would have felt unable to decline requests. Tan pointed to testimony that officers explicitly told Blackburn’s guest he could leave while failing to tell Blackburn the same, arguing that conspicuous absence of an advisement supports a seizure finding.

Counsel also debated a separate preservation and prejudice question after a defense witness appeared at trial in jail clothing. Nations relied on State v. Rodriguez and related precedent to argue that an objection was required to preserve the issue and that the trial court did not necessarily commit reversible error. Tan countered that because the State joined in the concern and the trial court refused an individualized balancing test, the court’s failure to act was reversible, asserting that the juxtaposition of uniformed officers and a defense witness in jail garb risked prejudicing Blackburn’s presumption of innocence.

Both sides cited appellate and Supreme Court precedent during the roughly one-hour argument, and the judges asked multiple follow-up questions about preservation, courtroom dignity, and whether defense strategy could account for a witness appearing in jail clothing. Neither side received an immediate ruling from the panel.

After closing remarks, Acting Chief Judge Bernard Beljecic announced a brief recess because the next case on the calendar was not scheduled until 11:30 a.m.; the court stepped off the bench. No decision was issued from the bench at the close of argument.

The case is State of Washington v. Deborah Kate Blackburn, No. 600706, argued before Division 2 of the Washington Court of Appeals. The panel’s written decision will determine whether the trial court’s suppression rulings and related trial rulings are affirmed.