* State of Washington v. Michael E. Connors, Jr.

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
(not the court’s final written decision)
The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION THREE
STATE OF WASHINGTON,
Respondent,
v.
MICHAEL E. CONNORS JR.,
Appellant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No. 35718-0-III
PUBLISHED OPINION
PENNELL, A.C.J. — Michael 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
affirm.
FACTS
Mr. 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
FILED
MAY 30, 2019
In the Office of the Clerk of Court
WA State Court of Appeals, Division III
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 35718-0-III
State v. Connors
2
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.
Report of Proceedings (RP) (Nov. 13, 2017) at 86.
Mr. 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.
ANALYSIS
A 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 and sirens.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 35718-0-III
State v. Connors
3
RCW 46.61.024(1) (emphasis added).
Mr. 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).
When 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
152 (2015)).
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 35718-0-III
State v. Connors
4
Because 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 T HIRD N EW I NTERNATIONAL D ICTIONARY 2498 (1993). In the
context of the eluding statute, this definition appears to contemplate that the signaling or
pursuing officer is wearing department-issued clothing that clearly communicates the
officer’s official status to members of the general public.
The clothing described during Mr. Connors’s trial readily meets the ordinary
definition of a “uniform.” The vest worn by the officer was specific to the Spokane
Police Department. It served to notify the public that the officer was an official member
of the police department. The fact that the officer wore “normal clothes” under his police
vest does not mean he was not wearing a uniform. Some uniforms are comprehensive
from head to toe. Others are not. See, e.g., People v. Estrella, 31 Cal. App. 4th 716, 724,
37 Cal. Rptr. 2d 383 (1995) (marked police vest constituted distinctive police uniform).
The eluding statute makes no preference. So long as an officer deploying the signal to
stop is attired in a distinctive garment that clearly identifies him as a member of law
enforcement, the statutory requirement of a “uniform” is met.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

No. 35718-0-111
State v. Connors
CONCLUSION
The judgment of conviction is affirmed.
Q.
Pennell, A.CJ.
WE CONCUR:
~·~w 	if.doway,J. 	~ 	Fearin!.~ 1	(L·
5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.