PENNELL, A.C. J.
Connors appeals his conviction for attempting to elude a
police vehicle. He claims the State presented insufficient
evidence that he had been pursued by a police officer
"in uniform." We disagree with this contention and
Connors was driving a stolen car when he failed to respond to
a signal to stop issued from a police vehicle. Instead of
stopping, Mr. Connors sped away to an apartment complex. He
then abandoned the stolen car and fled on foot until he was
apprehended by the pursuing officer. The officer described
his own attire at the time of the incident as including
a black external vest carrier, so it actually goes over
normal clothes, has all my normal duty gear, I just carry it
on a vest in front of me instead of on a belt. It has a
Spokane Police badge on the front; it's a patch. And then
it has clear block reflective letters across the back that
say police. Then I wear a drop-down style holster and it has
a shiny silver Spokane Police badge on the front of my leg.
of Proceedings (RP) (Nov. 13, 2017) at 86.
Connors was charged with, and convicted of, attempting to
elude a police vehicle and possession of a stolen motor
vehicle. He appeals his eluding conviction.
conviction for attempting to elude a police vehicle requires
the State to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the
defendant was signaled to stop by a uniformed police officer.
State v. Hudson, 85 Wn.App. 401, 403, 932 P.2d 714
(1997); State v. Fussell, 84 Wn.App. 126, 127, 925
P.2d 642 (1996). The pertinent language of the eluding
statute is as follows:
Any driver of a motor vehicle who willfully fails or refuses
to immediately bring his or her vehicle to a stop and who
drives his or her vehicle in a reckless manner while
attempting to elude a pursuing police vehicle, after being
given a visual or audible signal to bring the vehicle to a
stop, shall be guilty of a class C felony. The signal given
by the police officer may be by hand, voice, emergency light
or siren. The officer giving such a signal shall be in
uniform and the vehicle shall be equipped with lights
RCW 46.61.024(1) (emphasis added).
Connors argues the State's evidence was insufficient to
meet this standard because the officer who signaled Mr.
Connors to stop was predominantly dressed in "normal
clothes," accompanied by a police vest and badges. Br.
of Appellant at 1, 4; RP (Nov. 13, 2017) at 86. The merits of
Mr. Connors's argument turns not on the nature of the
State's proof (the facts are uncontested), but on the
meaning of the word "uniform." This is a matter of
statutory interpretation, which we review de novo. Dep
't of Ecology v. Campbell & Gwinn, LLC, 146
Wn.2d 1, 9, 43 P.3d 4 (2002).
interpreting statutory text, our fundamental goal is to
discern legislative intent. In re Marriage of
Schneider, 173 Wn.2d 353, 363, 268 P.3d 215 (2011). When
a statute does not define a term, courts will give the
term" 'its plain and ordinary meaning unless a
contrary legislative intent is indicated.'"
State v. Jones, 172 Wn.2d 236, 242, 257 P.3d 616
(2011) (quoting Ravenscroft v. Wash. Water Power
Co., 136 Wn.2d 911, 920-21, 969 P.2d 75 (1998)).
Generally, courts derive the plain meaning from context as
well as related statutes. State v. Barnes, 189 Wn.2d
492, 495-96, 403 P.3d 72 (2017). But a standard English
dictionary may also be employed to determine the plain
meaning of an undefined term. Id. at 496 (citing
State v. Fuentes, 183 Wn.2d 149, 160, 352 P.3d
the term "uniform" is not defined by RCW 46.61.024,
we look to the dictionary for assistance. A
"uniform" is defined as a "dress of a
distinctive design or fashion adopted by or prescribed for
members of a particular group . . . and serving as a means of
identification," and "a garment or outfit of a
widely copied style or prescribed design." Webster's
Third New International Dictionary 2498 (1993). In the
context of the eluding statute, this definition appears to
contemplate that the signaling or pursuing officer is wearing