see RCW 10.93.070(2) (authorizing a Washington peace officer to enforce traffic or criminal laws across jurisdictions “[i]n response to an emergency involving an immediate threat to human life or property”). 2 We have previously said an appellate court must approach claims of constitutional error asserted for the first time on appeal by first “satisfy[ing] itself that the error is truly of constitutional magnitude — that is what is meant by ‘manifest’.” State v. Scott, 110 Wn.2d 682, 688, 757 P.2d 492 (1998). “If the claim is constitutional, then the court should examine the effect the error had on the defendant’s trial according to the harmless error standard set forth in Chapman v. California." Id.; see Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S. Ct. 824, 17 L. Ed. 2d 705 (1967) (<HOLDING>). 3 70 Wn. App. 573. 4 159 Wn.2d 918. Kirkman
holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that error is considered harmless if it is established beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict or alternatively stated that there is no reasonable possibility that the error contributed to the conviction holding that a constitutional error is harmless where it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the error complained of did not contribute to the verdict obtained holding that before a federal constitutional error can be held harmless the court must be able to declare a belief that it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt holding that before an error can be held harmless the reviewing court must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the defendants conviction