special glass locomotive windows, whose composition must meet
federal railroad regulations, locomotive "operating
mechanisms?" We ask this question in the context of RCW
81.60.080, a fallow statute that criminalizes sabotaging
rolling stock. After declining to entertain Amanda
Torres' Fourth Amendment challenge to her arrest and
confession, we hold that locomotive windows are not operating
mechanisms and reverse her conviction for sabotaging rolling
stock. We remand for a new trial on this one charge since
Torres also damaged air brakes in addition to windows. We
affirm other convictions for burglary and malicious mischief.
appeal arises from the prosecution of Amanda Torres for entry
into a fenced railroad yard and vandalism to a locomotive
inside the yard. This statement of facts comes from the trial
and a CrR 3.5 confession hearing. We start with some trial
runs, the Yakima Central Railroad parks locomotives inside a
locked fence at its Wapato yard. On July 7, 2014, railroad
employee Jake Shreves discovered a ransacked locomotive at
the Wapato railroad yard. Shreves found the fence bent to
allow access for an intruder, garbage strewn about the
locomotive, four or five broken windows, and a discharged
fire extinguisher. Further investigation revealed shattered
glass tops of air gauges.
Yakima Central locomotive windows housed strong ballistic
bullet proof, optically transparent glass that must meet
federal regulations. The locomotive air gauges displayed the
amount of air applied to engine brakes and measured the air
in reserve tanks. Destroyed air gauges render a train unsafe
by restricting the operator from determining if the brake
system contains sufficient air for braking purposes. The law
prohibits the operation of a train that lacks functioning air
gauges. At trial, Yakima Central employee Jack Shreves
identified the air gauge as part of the operating mechanism
of the locomotive. Nevertheless, the gauge may work if the
only damage is harm to the glass top. At trial, Shreves
recalled no damage to the gauge needles. No witness
identified the locomotive windows as operating mechanisms.
discovering vandalism at the Yakima Central Railroad yard,
Jake Shreves contacted law enforcement. Yakima County Deputy
Sheriff Sergio Reyna responded to the scene on July 7 at 8:00
a.m. Reyna reviewed and photographed the damage and
unsuccessfully combed for latent fingerprints. With Deputy
Reyna present, Shreves retrieved from the ground an
identification card belonging to appellant Amanda Torres.
Shreves handed the card to Deputy Reyna, who drove to the
address listed on the card.
important question on appeal is whether a confession
purportedly spoken by Amanda Torres to Sheriff Deputy Sergio
Reyna should be suppressed. The remainder of the statement of
facts comes from a confession suppression hearing.
a.m., on July 7, Sheriff Deputy Sergio Reyna arrived at the
Wapato address on Amanda Torres' identification card.
Torres' aunt owned the house. Deputy Reyna knocked on the
residence front door, a young female answered the knock,
Reyna asked the young lady if he could speak to Amanda
Torres, and the young female escorted Reyna to a downstairs
bedroom. The identity of the young female and her
relationship to the house looms important in resolving the
legality of Deputy Reyna's entry inside the residence and
seizure of Amanda Torres. During the suppression hearing,
Torres identified the female as Isabel Batista, Torres'
aunt's daughter-in-law. Torres averred that Batista was
age 13 or 14 on July 7, 2014.
State presented no testimony to identify the young female who
allowed Sheriff Deputy Sergio Reyna entrance to the Wapato
home. Sergio Reyna did not know the age of the woman,
although he recognized her as being "younger."
Report of Proceedings (RP) at 17. Reyna described the
youngish woman as being 5'3" or 5'4" in
curtain, rather than a door, separated the downstairs bedroom
from the remainder of the basement, so Deputy Sergio Reyna
knocked on a wooden stud and asked to speak to Amanda Torres.
A male and female lay on a bed. Torres identified herself and
rose from the bed. Amanda Torres and Sergio Reyna's
testimony differs as to events thereafter.
to Amanda Torres, she awoke to Deputy Reyna's knocking
and his telling her that he was a sheriff and was looking for
Amanda Torres. Torres stumbled out of bed without shoes. She
wore basketball shorts and a tank top, an outfit in which she
to Amanda Torres, Deputy Sergio Reyna took her arm and told
her to follow him. Reyna did not allow Torres to completely
dress. Torres immediately deemed herself under arrest since
Reyna gave her no choice but to obey him. Reyna neither told
Torres that she was under arrest or not under arrest. Reyna
concedes he possibly grabbed Torres' elbow and escorted
to Amanda Torres, when the two reached upstairs, Deputy
Sergio Reyna asked Torres if the identification card in his
possession was Torres' card. Torres responded in the
affirmative. Reyna next asked where Torres lost the card.
Torres did not respond because of the distraction of
Torres' aunt returning home. The aunt asked the reason
for Deputy Reyna being inside the home, inquired about who
permitted Reyna's entrance, and questioned whether the
deputy held a warrant. In response, Reyna escorted an unshod
to Sheriff Deputy Sergio Reyna, he sat Amanda Torres in the
back of his patrol car. He then delivered Miranda
warnings to Torres and questioned her about damage to the
locomotive. Reyna remained outside the car and spoke to
Torres with the car door open.
to Sergio Reyna, after he read the Miranda warnings,
Amanda Torres admitted to being present at the railroad yard
with friends and conceded that she and her friends had
imbibed strong drink. Torres refused to be a snitch on her
friends. Torres did not expressly admit to damaging the
locomotive, but volunteered to take responsibility for the
damage. Torres never cried and never asked for assistance of
a lawyer. Reyna's patrol car contained a voice recorder,
but Reyna chose not to record the conversation. During the
conversation, Amanda Torres' boyfriend walked toward the
car with Torres' shoes in hand. Reyna closed the car door
to prevent the boyfriend access to Torres.
to Amanda Torres, Deputy Sergio Reyna questioned her for ten
minutes as she sat in the patrol car. Reyna stood outside the
car, and the two spoke with the door closed and locked, but
the window halfway down. Reyna never read Torres the
Miranda warnings. The deputy spoke to her as if she
to Amanda Torres, Sergio Reyna claimed a videotape showed
Torres damaging the locomotive and asserted that he gathered
Torres' fingerprints at the scene. Reyna also declared
that Torres' identification card lay inside the
locomotive. Reyna asked Torres why she wreaked the damage.
Torres responded that she knew not about any damage to a
train. Torres cried and asked for a lawyer. She never
confessed to drinking alcohol or volunteered responsibility
for damage to the locomotive. She never uttered that she
wished not to be a snitch.
State of Washington charged Amanda Torres with sabotage of
rolling stock, second degree malicious mischief, and second
degree burglary. The trial court conducted a CrR 3.5 hearing
to determine whether to suppress Amanda Torres' purported
inculpatory statements to Yakima Sheriff Deputy Sergio Reyna.
During the hearing, Deputy Reyna and Amanda Torres testified.
the testimony at the CrR 3.5 hearing, Amanda Torres argued
that she received no Miranda warnings before
speaking to Sheriff Deputy Sergio Reyna in the patrol car.
Torres did not assert any violation of her Fourth Amendment
rights. After the hearing, the trial court adjudged Amanda
Torres' statements admissible. The court found Deputy
Reyna more credible than Amanda Torres, Reyna provided
Miranda warnings, and Torres spoke voluntarily to
Reyna. Our record lacks any written findings of fact
resulting from the CrR 3.5 hearing.
trial, Amanda Torres testified that, as she lay in bed
incompletely asleep, Sheriff Deputy Sergio Reyna grasped her
arm and ushered her to the deputy's patrol car. Torres
did not know where Reyna found her identification card.
Torres denied damaging the train. She repudiated telling
Reyna that she vandalized the train and that she drank with
friends at the rail yard.
Torres requested a jury instruction defining the term
"operating mechanism" as used in RCW 81.60.080, a
term found in the crime of sabotaging rolling stock. Torres
wished to argue that windows do not constitute an
"operating mechanism." The trial court responded:
I think that the term operating mechanism is testimony as to
the gages [sic] being operating mechanism. There's also
testimony that the windows are in a-a necessary part of the
locomotive and-and I think you are right, I don't think
the jury's going to decide this case on the basis of
whether the windows ...