Case Law


Washington Supreme Court

Confrontation Clause. The primary purpose test governs a courts’ analysis of hearsay statements made to both governmental and nongovernmental witnesses. Shafer’s declarant-centric test, Sandoval’s three-factor test, and Hurtado’s synthesis of the two have all been superseded by the primary purpose test. A crime victim’s statements to his medical providers were nontestimonial because they were not made with the primary purpose of creating an out-of-court substitute for trial testimony. The fact that a victim signs waivers allowing the police to obtain his medical records does not alter the primary purpose of the interactions. State v. Scanlan, No. 95971-4 (Aug. 1, 2019). Justice Gordon McCloud authored a concurring opinion. King County DPA Ann Summers represented the State.

Division One

Juvenile Disposition Appeals. First-time juvenile offender’s manifest injustice sentence vacated and the matter remanded for entry of a standard disposition due to the prosecutor’s failure to obtain the proper entry of necessary findings of fact and conclusions of law. State v. I.N.A., COA No. 79587-2-I (Jul. 29, 2019).

Conflicts. In resolving conflict questions, the official comments to the Rules of Professional Conduct will prevail over pre-2006 appellate court decisions. Plein v. USAA Casualty Insurance Co., COA No. 78190-1-I (Jul. 29, 2019).

Administrative Office of the Courts

The Administrative Office of the Courts has published new and updated forms on the Washington Court Forms website. These forms are available at: Washington Court Forms Homepage:

List of All Forms:

The Washington Pattern Forms Committee and its subcommittees created new forms and updated existing forms to address changes in the law from the 2019 legislative session and the feedback provided by court form users. Some forms were also removed from the court form website because they were no longer supported by current law. A summary of changes to the forms may be found at:

Any feedback or questions about the forms can be provided to the Washington Pattern Forms Committee by submitting a Comment on Forms.

Ninth Circuit

Conditions of Supervised Release. A special condition that provided the sex offender “shall not frequent any place whose primary purpose is to sell, rent, show, display, or give other forms of access to, material depicting and/or describing sexually explicit conduct,” is not unconstitutionally over-broad or vague. This prohibition was accompanied by definitions for “sexually explicit conduct” and “sexually stimulating depictions”:

“any material depicting and/or describing sexually explicit conduct involving adults, defined as sexually stimulating depictions of adult sexual conduct that are deemed inappropriate by the defendant’s probation officer”. . . “sexually stimulating depictions” include “computer images, pictures, photographs, books, writings, drawings, videos, or video games depicting such conduct.”

Under dictionary definitions of “frequent,” a defendant does not violate this condition by visiting an adult-themed business only once. United States v. Ochoa, No. 18-10383 (9th Cir. Jul. 29, 2019).

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)

U Visas. The guide includes an overview of: (1) The U visa certification process; (2) Best practices for certifying agencies and officials; (3) Answers to frequently asked questions from judges, prosecutors, law enforcement agencies and other officials; (4) DHS contact information for certifying agencies on U visa issues; and (5) Training resources and opportunities. A separate T Visa guide will issue shortly. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U Visa Law Enforcement Resource Guide: For Federal, State, Local, Tribal and Territorial Law Enforcement, Prosecutors, Judges, and Other Government Agencies (2019).


Division One

Child Support Obligations. The Ontario, Canada child and spousal support order may be registered in Washington and enforced pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The Canadian order, which does not automatically terminated spousal support upon the recipient’s remarriage, does not contravene Washington public policy. Brett v. Martin, COA No. 79076-5-I (May 20, 2019, publication ordered July 22, 2019).

Community Caretaking. Officers, who were aware of the opioid crisis and the large number of heroin overdoses in their community, improperly opened the doors of the defendant’s vehicle without first trying to rouse the sleeping occupants. Suspected unconsciousness alone, without any evidence inside the car suggesting drug use, does not support a reasonable, objective belief of a need for immediate assistance. State v. Harris, COA No. 77987-7-I (Jul. 22, 2019).

Ethics Advisory Committee

Judge’s Children. A judge may preside over matters in which an attorney, who is affiliated with the same public defender agency as the judge’s child, is attorney of record. “But the judge should disclose on the record information that the judge believes the parties or their lawyers might reasonably consider relevant to a possible motion for disqualification, even if the judge believes there is no basis for disqualification.” State of Washington Ethics Advisory Committee Ethics Opinion 19-05 (Jul. 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Warrantless Firearm Seizures. Police officers’ warrantless seizure of firearms from a residence after detaining the plaintiff’s husband for a mental health evaluation in response to a 911 call, did not violate the plaintiff wife’s Fourth Amendment rights. The seizure was justified under a community caretaking function framework under the facts of this case, as the urgency of a significant public safety interest was sufficient to outweigh the significant privacy interest in personal property kept in the home. The officers had probable cause to detain involuntarily an individual experiencing an acute mental health episode and to send the individual for evaluation, they expected the individual would have access to firearms and present a serious public safety threat if he returned to the home, and they did not know how quickly the individual might return. Issue preclusion bars relitigation of the plaintiff wife’s Second Amendment challenge to the forfeiture of the seized firearms. Rodriguez v. City of San Jose, No. 17-17144 (9th Cir. Jul. 23, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Allegations of Racial Bias During Jury Deliberations. As soon as any party becomes aware that there are sufficient facts to support allegations that racial bias was a factor in the verdict, the court and opposing counsel must be notified. As soon as a court becomes aware of allegations that racial bias may have been a factor in the verdict, the court shall take affirmative steps to oversee further inquiry into the matter and instruct counsel not to have any further communications with the jurors unless it is on the record and supervised by the court. The court must tailor the on the record inquiry to the specific allegations presented. The ultimate question for the court is whether an objective observer (one who is aware that implicit, institutional, and unconscious biases, in addition to purposeful discrimination, have influenced jury verdicts in Washington State) could view race as a factor in the verdict. If there is a prima facie showing that the answer is yes, then the court must hold an evidentiary hearing. State v. Berhe, No. 95920-0 (Jul. 18, 2019). State represented by Dennis McCurdy and Ann Summers. Justice Gordon McCloud filed a concurring opinion in which she opines that defense counsel’s ability to investigate juror conduct is not limited by the majority’s opinion.

No Contact Orders. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172 (1997), does not apply to a defendant’s offer to stipulate to a domestic violence no-contact order in a felony violation of a no-contact order prosecution. The probative value of a domestic violence no-contact order far outweighs any danger of unfair prejudice, a no-contact order provides the specific restrictions imposed on a defendant, is closely related to a felony violation of a no-contact order charge, and is evidence of multiple elements of that offense. A trial court may redact any portion of a no-contact
order that poses a risk of unfair prejudice. State v. Taylor, No. 96325-8 (Jul. 18, 2019). State represented by Pam Loginsky and Jodi Hammond.

Division One

Critical Area Regulations. The Growth Management Act does not mandate that local governments consider the protection, against geologically hazardous areas, of the public health and safety when developing critical area regulations. Futurewise v. Snohomish County, COA No. 79663-1-I (Jul. 15, 2019).

Growth Management Hearings Board. The Board has the power to deem arguments abandoned due to inadequate briefing. Citing the GMA in an argument heading is inadequate. The petitioner must explain how the law applies to the facts before the Board and how the local government has failed to comply with the GMA. Futurewise v. Snohomish County, COA No. 79663-1-I (Jul. 15, 2019).

Graduated Income Taxes. No statutory prohibition limits Seattle’s authority to levy a property tax on income because RCW 36.65.030 (Substitute Senate Bill (SSB) 413) is unconstitutional in its entirety for violating the Washington Constitution article II, section 19’s single subject rule. The Washington Constitution, however, bars any graduated income tax. Kunath v. City of Seattle, COA No. 79447-4-I (Jul 15, 2019).

First Circuit

Absolute Prosecutorial Immunity. Deputy prosecuting attorney is not entitled to absolute immunity in a § 1983 action for withholding information about a criminologist’s drug addiction and evidence tampering from the plaintiff, as her decision to withhold evidence lacked a “functional tie” to her prosecutorial role in that specific plaintiff’s criminal case. DPA not entitled to absolute governmental attorney immunity with respect to withholding exculpatory evidence in response to a subpoena duces tecum as she primarily functioned as a custodian of evidence, rather than as an advocate. Penate v. Kaczmarek, No. 18-2261 (Jun. 26, 2019).

New York State Bar Association

Social Media. First released in 2014, the Guidelines are one of the leading resources on a lawyer’s obligations under the rules of professional conduct with respect to social media. While based on New York’s rules, the Guidelines cite to advisory ethics opinions from across the country. Subject matter includes attorney competence, attorney advertising and communications concerning a lawyer’s services, furnishing of legal advice through social media, review and use of evidence from social media, communicating with clients, researching jurors and reporting juror misconduct, and using social media to communicate with a judicial officer. The document also includes an appendix that includes a list of some of the more popular social media platforms, as well as a glossary of social media’s more commonly used words & phrases. Social Media and New Communication Technologies Committee of the Commercial and Federal Litigation Section of the New York State Bar Association, Social Media Ethics Guidelines (Updated Apr. 29, 2019, Released June 20, 2019).

National Judicial College

Science Bench Book for Judges. “It has become ever more apparent that judges must have some understanding of science. This book is a helpful and necessary effort to provide judges with knowledge and techniques that will help them work with scientific subject matter.” U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer. The entire book is available here.


Washington Supreme Court

First Amendment and Public Financing of Elections. Seattle’s Democracy Voucher Program further’s a legitimate interest in the public financing of elections. The tax that supports the program “does not alter, abridge, restrict, censor, or burden speech.” The Program, moreover, does not force association between taxpayers and any message conveyed by the program. Elster v. Pynchon, No. 96660-5 (Jul 11, 2019).

Vehicular Homicide. The defendant’s action of striking a vehicle while intoxicated and fleeing the scene was the proximate cause of a Good Samaritan who was killed while helping the occupant of the vehicle the defendant struck. The tort-derived reasonable foreseeability standard is properly applied in vehicular homicide cases to delineate between a superseding cause and a mere intervening event. The question of foreseeability rests with the jury when reasonable minds can differ on this issue. State v. Frahm, No. 95947-1 (Jul. 11, 2019). Justices Madsen and Gordon McCloud dissent.

Washington Law Against Discrimination. Obesity always qualifies as an impairment under the plain language of RCW 49.60.040(7)(c)(i) because it is recognized by the medical community as a “physiological disorder, or condition” that affects multiple body systems listed in the statute. If an employer refuses to hire someone because the employer perceives the applicant to have obesity, and the applicant is able to properly perform the job in question, the employer violates this section of the Washington Law Against Discrimination. Taylor v. Burlington Northern Railroad Holdings, Inc., No. 96335-5 (Jul. 11, 2019). Justices Yu and Gordon McCloud dissent.

The Court accepted review on July 9, 2019, of the following cases:

Jurisdiction of Courts. State v. Stevens County Dist. Court Judge, No. 97071-8. Stevens County. Issue: Whether the Superior Court can, in first appearances, exercise its concurrent jurisdiction over misdemeanor cases where the case was or is likely to be filed in the District Court. COA opinion reported at 7 Wn. App. 2d 927 (2019). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Jurors. Bednarczyk v. King County, No. 96990-6. King County. Issues presented: Does King County’s failure to compensate jurors for their service result in the unlawful exclusion of prospective jurors based on “economic status” in violation of the Juror Rights Statute, RCW 2.36.080(3)? Does there exist an implied cause of action under the Juror Rights Statute, RCW 2.36.080(3)? Are jurors “employees” for purposes of the Washington Minimum Wage Act, RCW 49.46.020, and therefore entitled to be paid at least the minimum wage for each hour of service? COA opinion reported at 7 Wn. App. 2d 647 (2019). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Division One

“Juvenile” Sentencing. Neither the Eighth Amendment nor article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution require a presumption that a “juvenile’s” youthfulness is a mitigating circumstance that warrants a deviation from an SRA standard range. State v. Gregg, COA No. 77913-3-I (Jul. 8, 2019).

Guilty Pleas. Although the defendant was affirmatively misinformed about his duty to register as a felony firearm offender, he fails to establish manifest injustice sufficient to vacate his guilty plea. State v. Gregg, COA No. 77913-3-I (Jul. 8, 2019).

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The June 2019 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.

Ninth Circuit

Federal Marijuana Prosecutions. A defendant may only enjoin his federal prosecution for violations of the Controlled Substances Act if he can prove that his actions were in strict compliance with the state’s medical marijuana law. United States v. Evans, No. 17-30185 (Jul. 9, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Restitution. “The sentencing hearing,” from which to calculate RCW 9.94A.753(1)’s 180 day period for determining restitution, when a defendant must be resentenced on remand, is the resentencing hearing. A trial court, therefore, does not exceed its statutory authority by entering a second restitution award following resentencing. State v. Barbee, No. 96490-4 (Jul. 3, 2019).

Division One

Cell-Site Location Information. A person has an expectation of privacy in cell-site location information (CSLI) records. The State must utilize search warrants, not subpoenas, to obtain CSLI records from a wireless carrier. State v. Phillips, COA No. 77175-2-I (Jul. 1, 2019).

Robbery. The use of force or fear to obtain or retain possession of the property at issue in a second degree robbery case is not an essential element that must be included in the information. A trial court is not required to instruct the jury on the good faith claim of title when neither the State nor defense request such an instruction. The good faith claim of title defense is surplusage and unnecessary in a robbery trial where the defendant claims that he selected the item, then paid for it at the checkout stand, and then was accosted as he was leaving the store, as if the jury believes the defendant there would be no theft and, hence, no robbery. State v. Phillips, COA No. 77562-6-I (Jul. 1, 2019).

Juvenile Sentencing. All deferred dispositions, including pending deferred dispositions, are excluded from a juvenile court’s calculation of an offender’s criminal history by RCW 13.40.020(8)(b). State v. S.M.G., COA No. 79039-1-I (Jul. 1, 2019).

Division Two

Search Warrants. The search warrant was sufficiently particular wherein it explained that (1) there was probable cause to search for “evidence of the crime(s) of: RCW 9.68.050 Dealing in depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct and RCW 9.68A.070 Possession of depictions of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct,” (2) the warrant described the items to be seized, including a list of specific types of electronic devices and media “capable of being used to commit or further the crimes outlined above, or to create, access, or store the types of evidence, contraband, fruits, or instrumentalities of such crimes,”and (3) limited the records, documents and other information to be seized from the devices and data to that “related to the production, creation, collection, trade, sale, distribution, or retention of files depicting minors engaged in sexually explicit acts/child pornography.” State v. Vance, COA No. 50664-5-II (Jul. 2, 2019).

Division Three

Failure to Register as a Sex Offender. To convict a sex offender registrant without a fixed address of a violation of RCW 9A.44.130(6)(b) for failing to provide an accurate accounting of where he stayed during the week to the county sheriff at his weekly report to the sheriff’s office, the State must prove that the sheriff’s office made a clear and specific request for this accounting for the week in question. Sufficient evidence may be established through the use of a form that explicitly requests transients to list all places stayed that week. State v. Dollarhyde, COA No. 36047-4-III (Jul. 2, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Bikini Baristas. The city’s lewd conduct ordinances are not unconstitutionally vague as the definition of “lewd act” would allow a person of ordinary intelligence to reasonably ascertain what is prohibited. The city’s dress code ordinance is also sufficiently clear. The act of wearing almost no clothing while serving coffee in a retail establishment does not constitute speech protected by the First Amendment. Edge v. City of Everett, No. 17-36038 (9th Cir. Jul. 3, 2019).


United States Supreme Court

Blood Alcohol Testing. Plurality decision with Justices Alito, Roberts, Breyer and Kavanaugh concluding that when a drive is unconscious and cannot be given a breath test, the exigent circumstances doctrine generally permits a blood test without a warrant. An exigency exists when (1) BAC evidence is dissipating and (2) some other factor creates pressing health, safety, or law enforcement needs that would take priority over a warrant application. Both conditions are met when a drunk-driving suspect is unconscious, as a driver’s unconsciousness does not just create pressing needs; it is itself a medical emergency. Justice Thomas concurred in the opening stating that he would apply a per se rule, under which the natural metabolization of alcohol in the blood stream “creates an exigency once police have probable cause to believe the driver is drunk,” regardless of whether the driver is conscious. Mitchell v. Wisconsin, No. 18-6210 (2019). Dissenters were Justices Sotomayor, Ginsburg, Kagan and Gorsuch.


United States Supreme Court

Double Jeopardy. The District Court denied this motion, invoking the dual-sovereignty doctrine, according to which two offenses “are not the ‘same offence’ ” for double jeopardy purposes if “prosecuted by different sovereigns” is reaffirmed. Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646 (Jun. 17, 2019). Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion that favors curtailing the doctrine of stare decisis. Dissenters were Justices Ginsburg and Gorsuch.

Takings. A government violates the Takings Clause when it takes property without compensation, and a property owner may bring a Fifth Amendment claim under §1983 at that time. Williamson County Regional Planning Comm’n v. Hamilton Bank of Johnson City, 473 U. S. 172 (1985), which held that property owners must seek just compensation under state law in state court before bringing a federal takings claim under §1983, is overruled. However, as long as post-taking compensation remedies are available, governments need not fear that federal courts will invalidate their regulations as unconstitutional. Knick v. Township of Scott, No. 17-647 (Jun. 21, 2019). Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Dissenters were Justices Kagan, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor.

Batson. The history of the State’s peremptory strikes in the defendant’s first four trials strongly supported the conclusion that the State’s use of peremptory strikes in the defendant’s sixth trial was motivated in substantial part by discriminatory intent. Disparate questioning can be probative of discriminatory intent – 145 questions asked of 5 black prospective jurors vs. 12 questions asked of 11 white seated jurors – when the two groups were not manifestly different. A comparison of the stuck jurors with those not struck revealed a series of factually inaccurate explanations for striking black prospective jurors, supporting a reversal of the verdict and remand for a seventh trial. Flowers v. Mississippi, No. 17-9572 (Jun. 21, 2019). Dissenters were Justices Thomas and Gorsuch.

Fabrication of Evidence Claims. The statute of limitations for a criminal defendant’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim alleging the fabrication of evidence does not begin to run until the end of the criminal proceedings against him. McDonough v. Smith, No. 18-485 (Jun. 20, 2019). Dissenters were Justices Thomas, Kagan, and Gorsuch.

Division One

Involuntary Commitment. A person facing a trial for an involuntary 90-day commitment does not have a constitutional right to a jury trial. A person who is given notice of her statutory right to demand a jury and who does not do so, is not entitled to vacation of an order of commitment obtained in a bench trial. In re Detention of C.B., COA No. 77471-9-I (Jun. 17, 2019).

Gifts of Public Funds. The port did not violate Const. art. VIII, sec. 7 by allowing trains to utilize rails rent free pursuant to a 1947 contract, and without paying for the impact to the tracks from wear and tear. Donative intent not shown where legally sufficient consideration was recieved by the Port. Only when the consideration is “so gross as to shock the conscience,” and thus may suggest fraud or other wrongdoing will donative intent be found. Peterson v. Port of Benton, COA No. 79090-1-I (Jun. 17, 2019).

Division Two

Defense Attorney Conflict of Interest. Defense counsel who previously represented a principal in the gang which had been involved in back-and-forth shootings with the defendants’ gang had an actual conflict of interest that required his withdrawal. Although the former client was not a witness in the defendants’ trial, the attorney’s inability to use confidential information he learned during that prior representation in the defense of his current client represented an actual conflict of interest. State v. Kitt, COA No. 49534-1-II (Jun. 18, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Police Officer Negligence Claims. Police officers owe a duty of reasonable care to avoid unreasonably escalating an encounter to the use of deadly force. A negligence claim is not barred by conduct that also supports an intentional tort, such as assault. The public duty doctrine does not prevent negligence lawsuits against police officers, though the legislature may limit liability by statute. Beltran-Serrano v. City of Tacoma, No. 95602-8 (Jun. 13, 2019). Justices Madsen, Johnson, Owens, and Wiggins dissented.

Division Two

Equitable Tolling and Collateral Attacks. Petitioner was not entitled to equitable tolling of the one year time limit contained in RCW 10.73.090. While the lawyer the defendant’s family retained to assist him with his personal restraint petition (PRP) resigned in lieu of discipline prior to the expiration of the one-year time limit, there was no bad faith, deception, or false assurances by the State. RAP 18.8(a) and (b) does not authorize extending the time limit for filing a PRP. In re Personal Restraint of Fowler, COA No. 51029-4-II (Jun. 11, 2019).

Division Three

Self-Defense Instruction. A defendant was entitled to a self defense instruction even though he did not testify that he feared his opponent would badly beat him. The defendant may establish his subjective fear by circumstantial evidence through the testimony of others. State v. Tullar, COA No. 35956-5-III (Jun. 11, 2019).

Legal Financial Obligations. The 2018 LFO amendments impact assessments for the cost of court-appointed counsel and the sheriff’s fee. The 2018 LFO amendments do not impact the domestic violence assessment under RCW 10.99.080(1) as it is a penalty, rather than a cost of prosecution under RCW 10.01.160. The domestic violence assessment may be imposed against indigent defendants. The 2018 LFO amendments do not impact recovery of medical expenses under RCW 70.48.130(5) for care provided in the jail while a defendant is in custody pending adjudication. While a court must find that the defendant has the ability to pay prior to ordering repayment of medical costs, the fact that the defendant meets the statutory definition of indigence under RCW 10.101.010(3)(c) does not preclude the trial court from requiring reimbursement. State v. Smith, COA No. 35708-2-III (Jun. 6, 2019).

LUPA. Parties to a land use petition act action may agree to accept service of process by e-mail. RST Partnership v. Chelan County, COA No. 35838-1-III (Jun. 13, 2019).

Law Enforcement Digest Online Training

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission now offers online training instead of the previous written digests. The online training sessions are of high quality and are applicable to prosecuting attorneys. The February 2019 and March 2019 trainings are now posted.

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The May 2019 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.


Washington Supreme Court

Adjudicatory Body, Selective Prosecution, and Religion. In a post-remand opinion that restates that the State of Washington bars discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, and that enforcement of the Washington Law Against Discrimination does not violate a person’s right to religious free exercise and does not compel speech or association, the Court addresses the issues in the United States Supreme Court’s grant and reverse order. Members of an adjudicatory body may not disparage the religion of a party before it. Selective-enforcement claims premised on the free exercise clause are subject to the same demanding standard as all other selective enforcement claims, requiring the defendant to “introduce ‘clear evidence’ displacing the presumption that a prosecutor has acted lawfully.” State v. Arlene’s Flowers, Inc., No. 91615-2 (Jun. 6, 2019).

On Tuesday, June 4, 2019, the Supreme Court accepted review in the following cases:

Disqualification of Prosecuting Attorney’s Entire Office. State v. Nickels, No. 96943-4. Grant County – State’s Petition. Issues: “1. Does RPC 1.11(d) apply equally to elected prosecuting attorneys as it does to other government attorneys? 2. If arguendo, RPC 1. 11 ( d) does not apply to a timely and effectively screened elected prosecuting attorney, must the office wide disqualification abatement test take into account the complexity of the case, proximity to trial, and availability of substitute counsel?” COA opinion reported at 7 Wn. App. 2d 491 (2019). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Judicial Disqualification Statute. Godfrey v. Ste. Michelle Wine Estates, Ltd., No. 96952-3. Issues presented: “Is a Superior Court judge’s ruling granting a request to extend case management deadlines a ‘discretionary ruling’ for purposes of Washington’s notice of disqualification statute, RCW 4.12.050? If entering such an order is a discretionary ruling for purposes of the statute, then a party is foreclosed from using an affidavit of prejudice to unilaterally remove a judge from a case who has already granted such a request.” COA opinion is unpublished, though prior opinions in the case are published. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Division One

Offender Score Calculation. Dismissal of a misdemeanor conviction is not equivalent to vacation of that conviction. A misdemeanor that is dismissed pursuant to RCW 3.50.320 and RCW 3.66.067, following a deferred sentence, will interrupt the washout period for prior felonies. State v. Haggard, COA No. 77426-3-I (Jun. 3, 2019).

Search Warrants. Probable cause existed to issue the warrant as the affidavit set forth sufficient facts from which a reasonable person could conclude that the defendant was involved in criminal activity and existence of that activity could be found in the residence. Although the warrant contains generic classifications of the items to be searched and seized, it provided sufficient guidance to the officers to prevent them from making the search a general, exploratory rummaging in a person’s belongings. The complained of omission from the affidavit was merely negligent. No warrantless search occurred when the officers recorded the serial number that was in plain sight on a welder that may have been stolen. State v. Haggard, COA No. 77426-3-I (Jun. 3, 2019).

Division Two

Bail. The trial court is not required to make written or oral findings regarding its decision to deny release on personal recognizance pending trial. The record in this case supported a finding that conditions of release were necessary to reasonably assure the accused’s appearance – defendant had prior FTAs, an escape conviction, no employment or ties to the community, mental health issues, and the release unit considered the defendant to be a medium to high flight risk. The defendant’s prior convictions for firearm possession and assault, the absence of any person to vouch for him, mental health issues, past threats against the victim involving a deadly weapon, the instant offense was committed when the defendant was on probation, and the instant offense involved a violation of a protection order. The trial court, however, erred by failing to consider less restrictive conditions of release or the defendnat’s financial resources before imposing the $60,000 bond. State v. Ingram, COA No. 50577-1-II (Jun. 4, 2019).

Foreign Protection Orders. The validity of a foreign protection order is not an essential element of a violation of a protection order offense. The validity of the order is a legal question related to the admissibility of the order for the trial court to decide. State v. Ingram, COA No. 50577-1-II (Jun. 4, 2019).

Division Three

Felony Elude and Vagueness. The attempting to elude a police vehicle statute, RCW 46.61.024(1), is not unconstitutionally vague. The “as applied” standard for vagueness was not changed by Johnson v. United States, 135 S. Ct. 2551 (2015). State v. Schilling, COA No. 35719-8-III (Jun. 4, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Terry Stops. An anonymous tip that a person saw someone with a gun does not provide reasonable suspicion to make a Terry stop in Washington, where possession of a firearm is presumptively lawful. Flight from police officer does not establish reasonable suspicion in all cases; flight is just one factor in the reasonable suspicion analysis. Where flight occurs before officers communicate with the person and the person is of color, racial dynamics along with a simple desire not to interact with police will provide an “innocent” explanation of flight that flight when considered alongside a tip that is entitled to little weight, will not provide reasonable suspicion for a stop. United States v. Brown, No. 17-30191 (9th Cir. Jun. 5, 2019).


United States Supreme Court

First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest Claims. A First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim will generally fail as a matter of law when there was probable cause to arrest the person. A person may succeed on a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim despite the existence of probable cause when the person presents objective evidence that he was arrested when otherwise similarly situated individuals not engaged in the same sort of protected speech had not been. Nieves v. Bartlett, No. 17-1174 (May 28, 2019).

Washington Supreme Court

Manifest Injustice Dispositions. A suspended manifest injustice disposition is immediately appealable. The standard of proof for imposition of a manifest injustice sentence is clear and convincing evidence, as no constitutionally protectable liberty interest is created by the juvenile dispositional guidelines. State v. T.J.S.-M., No. 96434-3 (May 30, 2019). Justice Yu concurred in the result. Dissenters included Justices González and Gordon McCloud.

Division Three

“In Uniform” and Felony Elude. “Uniform” for purposes of eluding a police officer requires the signaling or pursuing officer to wear a department-issued garment that clearly communicates the officer’s official status to members clothing. A vest issued by the police department that the officer wore over “normal clothes” was a uniform as it had a Spokane Police badge on front and clear block reflective letters across the back that said “police.” State v. Connors, COA No. 35718-0-III (May 30, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Federal Criminal Jurisdiction in Indian Country. The Assimilative Crime Act (ACA), 18 U.S.C. § 13 applies to Indian Country. The ACA, when invoked in Indian Country, does not apply to (1) “offenses committed by one Indian against the person or property or property of another Indian,” (2) “any Indian committing any offense in the Indian country who has been punished by the local law of the tribe,” or (3) “any case where, by treaty stipulations, the exclusive jurisdiction over such offenses is or may be secured to the Indian tribes respectively.” See Indian Country Crimes Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1152. The Indian-on-Indian exception does not preclude application of the ACA to all “victimless” crimes. United States v. Smith, No. 17-30248 (9th Cir. May 28, 2019).


Division Two

Speedy Trial. A criminal defendant’s constitutional speedy trial rights were violated by a 38 year gap between charging and the defendant’s first appearance in the trial court on the murder charges. Most of the delay is attributable to the State which negligently allowed the defendant to be transferred to Canada to stand trial for murder and then made no formal efforts to extradite the defendant to the United States following his conviction in Canada. State v. Ross, COA No. 52570-4-II (May 21, 2019).

Public Funds and Ballot Propositions. RCW 42.17A.555, which prohibits the use of public facilities to support “a campaign for election of any person to any office or for the promotion of or opposition to any ballot proposition,” was violated when the Port filed a declaratory judgment action against two ballot propositions, seeking a judicial directive preventing the ballot propositions from being placed on the local ballot. The Port was required to disclose its pre-election declaratory judgment related legal expenditures as independent expenditures under RCW 42.17A.255. RCW 42.17A.255 does not violate the First Amendment and is not void for vagueness. State v. Economic Development Board for Tacoma-Pierce County, COA No. 49892-8-II (May 21, 2019).

Division Three

Cash Bail. If an accused has violated a condition of cash bail, a trial court has discretion to forfeit cash bail even after the accused reappears in court and even after entry of the judgment and sentence. State v. Jeglum, COA No. 35841-1-III (May 21, 2019).

DOSA. Eligibility for DOSA is offender-based, not offense-based. A defendant who is sentenced to serve concurrent sentences for multiple crimes is eligible for DOSA if at least one sentence has a standard range longer than one year. Postsentence Petition of Hardy, COA No. 36086-5-III (May 23, 2019).

Colorado Supreme Court

Drug Detection Dogs and Marijuana. A sniff from a drug-detection dog that is trained to alert to marijuana constitutes a search under the Colorado Constitution because that sniff can detect lawful activity, namely the legal possession of up to one ounce of marijuana by adults twenty-one and older. Law enorcement officers must have probable cause to believe that an item or area contains a drug in violation of state law before deploying a drug-detection dog that alerts to marijuana for an exploratory sniff. People v. McKnight, 2019 CO 36 (May 20, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Plain View. Inadvertence is not a separate element required under the plain view doctrine. Thus, a plain view seizure is legal when the police (1) have a valid justification to be in an otherwise protected area, provided that they are not there on a pretext, and (2) are immediately able to realize the evidence they see is associated with criminal activity. Law enforcement’s warrantless seizure of a defendant’s bloody clothing from the defendant’s hospital room was lawful where the officer’s presence in the hospital room was lawful and the police could reasonably conclude that the seized items had evidentiary value with respect to the current arson and assault investigation. State v. Morgan, No. 96017-8 (May 16, 2019). Justices Madsen and Gordon McCloud dissented. (Snohomish County – Seth Aaron Fine).

Impeachment Evidence and Harmless Error. The erroneous exclusion of impeachment evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt if, in light of the entire record, the court is convinced that the jury would have reached the same verdict absent the error. There is no eyewitness prerequisite to a finding of harmless error. When the victim’s account is corroborated by numerous other witnesses and the defendant’s account was highly implausible and/or directly refuted by other witnesses, the erroneous exclusion of U Visa evidence is harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Romero-Ochoa, No. 95905-6 (May 16, 2019). (Pierce County.)

Division Two

Controlled Substances. When a defendant has a previous conviction under chapter 69.50 RCW, RCW 69.50.408 automatically doubles the maximum sentence and the trial court does not have discretion to treat 60 months as the maximum sentence. The standard range for such a defendant is that in the SRA grid. State v. Cyr, COA No. 50912-1-II (May 14, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Pro Se Criminal Defendants. The defendant, who presented an unorthodox and ultimately unsuccessful defendant was properly found to be competent to represent himself. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it found that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his right to counsel. Equivocal statements made early on in a Faretta hearing will not taint a defendant’s fina, unequivocal waiver of counsel. The trial court was not required to conduct a second Faretta hearing after the defendant filed a motion requesting “a new counsel advisor.” United States v. Audette, No. 17-10017 (9th Cir. May 14, 2019).

American Bar Association

Obligations of Prosecutors in Negotiating Plea Bargains for Misdemeanor Offenses. Model Rules 1.1, 1.3, 3.8(a), (b), and (c), 4.1, 4.3, 5.1, 5.3, and 8.4(a), (c) and (d) impose obligations on prosecutors when entering into plea bargains with persons accused of misdemeanors. These obligations include the duty to ensure that each charge incident to a plea has an adequate foundation in fact and law, to ensure that the accused is informed of the right to counsel and the procedure for securing counsel, to avoid plea negotiations that jeopardize the accused’s ability to secure counsel, and, irrespective of whether an unrepresented accused has invoked the right to counsel, to avoid offering pleas on terms that knowingly misrepresent the consequences of acceptance or otherwise pressure or improperly induce acceptance on the part of the accused. American Bar Association Formal Opinion 486 (May 9, 2019).

Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board

Prosecutor Discipline. A commonwealth attorney received a public reprimand for listening to a jail phone call between a defendant and his attorney, which was recorded because the attorney had not registered his phone number with the jail. Although the attorney’s supervisors concluded that the attorney client privilege was waived as the defendant and the attorney were informed at the beginning of the call that it was being recorded, the disciplinary board found that the commonwealth attorney violated RPC 3.3, which states that “In representing a client, a lawyer shall not use means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay, or burden a third person, or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of such a person.” In re Matter of Thacher, VSB Docket No. 18-053-111919 (May 7, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Firearm Rights. The sheriff is not required to issue a concealed pistol licence to an individual whose sealed juvenile record includes adjudications for class A felonies. A sealed juvenile adjudication still exist as a matter of state law. A sealing order does not constitute an expungement of the juvenile offense. A sealed juvenile adjudication still exists, it is merely hidden from the view of the general public. A juvenile’s class A felony adjudication subjects him to federal law which makes it unlawful for him to “possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(g). Barr v. Snohomish County Sheriff, No. 96072-1 (May 9, 2019). [Editor’s Note: The Court expressly declined to decide whether state law prohibits a juvenile whose class A adjudications have been sealed is prohibited from possessing or carrying a firearm under state law.]. (Snoco Lyndsey Downs)

Adult Sentencing for Defendants Who Committed Their Crimes Prior to Their Eighteenth Birthday. A defendant whose sentence was imposed prior to the issuance of Houston-Sconiers, 188 Wn.2d 1 (2017), which grants to the trial court absolute discretion to depart from the standard sentencing ranges and mandatory sentence enhancements for defendants being sentenced under the SRA for offenses committed prior to their eighteenth birthday, is not entitled to collateral relief unless he can demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that his sentence would have been shorter if the trial court had absolute discretion to depart from the SRA at the time of sentencing. Because the judge sentenced this defendant to the top of the standard sentencing range, the Court declines to consider whether Houston-Sconiers is a significant material change in the law that applies retroactively to cases on collateral reivew. In re Personal Restraint of Meippen, No. 95394-5 (May 9, 2019). Justices Wiggins, González, Yu and Gordon McCloud dissented on the grounds that Houston-Sconiers is a significant thange of law that applies retroactively on collateral review and that would support a remand for a reference hearing. (King County Ann Summers and Amy Meckling)

Division One

Seizure. The defendant bears the burden of proving a seizure occurred in violation of article I, section 7. A seizure occurs for article I, section 7, when an officer’s words and action would have conveyed to an innocent person that his or movements are being restricted. Officers need not create a complete obstruction of an individual’s movements in order for the encounter to become a seizure. In the instant case, the defendant was seized when officers asked for proof of his identity under a totality of the circumstances analysis as (1) the defendant was seated in a parked car that was flanked by cars parked in each of the adjoining spaces when the two uniformed officers stood adjacent to the vehicle’s doors, such that neither the defendant nor his passenger would have been able to open the doors and walk away from the vehicle without the officers moving or giving way; (2) the defendant could not move his vehicle in reverse without risking his car making contact with one or both of the officers and a barrier prevented the vehicle from pulling forward, (3) the officers illuminated the interior of the vehicle with flashlights, and (4) the officers used a ruse to begin the contact, asking “Is this Taylor’s car?” The seizure was unlawful as the officers did not observe any defendant-specific conduct prior to approaching the vehicle. State v. Johnson, COA No. 77720-3-I (May 6, 2019).

Domestic Violence. Statements the non-testifying victim made to health care providers that were admitted pursuant to ER 803(a)(4), in conjunction with a certified copy of the defendant’s driver’s license, and a redacted certified copy of the no contact order, was sufficient to establish that the defendant committed the crime of misdemeanor violation of the no-contact order. Sufficient evidence, however, does not support the conviction for assault in the second degree in violation of RCW 9A.36.021(1)(a), as the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant recklessly inflicted substantial bodily harm during an intentional assault. While the evidence showed the defendant fractured the victim’s finger, there was no evidence that the defendant knew of and disregarded a substantial risk that he would fracture the victim’s finger when he grabbed the phone from her hand. State v. Melland, COA No. 76617-1-I (May 6, 2019).

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The April 2019 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.

Florida Supreme Court

Judges in Romantic Relationships with Attorneys. A judge must recuse in any case handled by the attorney who is in a romantic relationship with the judge. The judge must disclose the relationship with the attorney in cases where one side is represented by the firm that has a relationship with the attorney. The judge need not automatically recuse from cases involving the firm with whom the attorney is associated so long as it is clearly established that the attorney derives no personal benefit from cases handled by other members of the firm and the judge is careful to observe strict objectivity in ruling on any motions to disqualify that may stem from revealing the relationship. Judicial Ethics Advisory Committee, Opinion No. 2019-16 (Apr. 25, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Exceptional Sentence. The trial court was not collaterally estopped from imposing an exceptional sentence at a resentencing hearing that was necessitated by the reversal of four of seven convictions, by its decision not to impose an exceptional sentence as the original sentencing hearing. The presumption of judicial vindictiveness does not apply when the overall length of the new sentence is lower than the original sentence. The presumption of prosecutorial vindictiveness does not prevent the State from recommending an exceptional sentence at a resentencing hearing after not requested one at the original hearing, as the prosecutor at each sentencing hearing must decide whether the length of a standard range sufficient given the facts of the case. State v. Brown, No. 95734-7 (May 2, 2019). Justice Gordon McCloud was the lone dissenter.

Clerk’s Bonds. RCW 36.23.020 allows a superior court to increase the amount of the clerk’s bond. The superior court’s authority is not capped by RCW 36.16.050, which limits the maximum bond that a clerk must post before assuming office at the amount set for the treasurer in the same county. Riddle v. Elofson, No. 95959-5 (Apr. 25, 2019). Plurality decision with Justices Yu, Madsen, and Fairhurst dissenting on the grounds that the judges exceeded their statutory authority by ordering the clerk to double the amount of her official bond without any prior notice or opportunity to be heard.

Writs of Prohibition. Whether a writ of prohibition will issue is a narrow inquiry that looks only to the question of power and jurisdiction of an inferior court. A writ will not issue when the petitioner may be able to obtain relief through a preliminary injunction and declaratory judgment. Riddle v. Elofson, No. 95959-5 (Apr. 25, 2019). Plurality decision with Justices Yu, Madsen, and Fairhurst dissenting on the grounds that the extraordinary circumstances presented support the extraordinary remedy of prohibition.

On April 30, 2019, the Washington Supreme Court accepted review in the following matters:

Aggravated First Degree Murder and “Juveniles.” State v. Delbosque, No. 96709-1. Mason County– State’s Petition for Review. Issues presented: (1) Whether the Court of Appeals improperly vacated the trial court’s minimum term for a “juvenile” convicted of aggravated first degree due to its misallocation of the burden of proof and persuasion, by treating age as a per se mitigating factor, and by misapplying the standard of review. (2) Whether the defendant has a constitutional right to appeal his minimum term. COA opinion reported at 6 Wn. App. 2d 407 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Duty to Investigate. Wrigley v. State of Wash., DSHS, No. 96830-6. Government’s Petition for Review. Issues presented: Whether RCW 26.44.010 and .050 require an investigation of allegations of possible future abuse or neglect. COA opinion reported at 5 Wn. App. 2d 909 (2018) Petition for review pleadings available here.

Single Subject Requirement. Am. Hotel & Lodging Ass’n. v. City of Seattle, No. 96781-4. Government’s Petition for Review. Issues: Whether Seattle’s I-124, violates the City’s single subject requirement? COA opinion reported at 6 Wn. App. 2d 928 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Garnishments. Fireside Bank v. Askins, No. 96853-5. Whether a trial court may enforce the regulatory protections of the Collection Agency Act (CAA), when a “collection agency” “collected and attempted to collect, through writs of garnishment,” inflated judgment balances. COA opinion reported at 6 Wn. App. 2d 431 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Division One

Double Jeopardy. State v. Zhao, 157 Wn.2d 188 (2006), which allows a person to plead guilty to a fictitious crime, does not provide a basis to avoid double jeopardy and convict a person for two crimes based on one criminal act. State v. Robinson, COA No. 76648-1-I (Apr. 22, 2019).

Division Three

Theft of a Motor Vehicle. A snowmobile is not a “motor vehicle” for purposes of RCW 9A.56.65, which makes it a class B felony to commit theft of a motor vehicle. State v. Tucker, COA No. 35530-6-III (May 2, 2019). Judge Korsmo dissented.

Seizure. A defendant was seized for purposes of the Fourth Amendment when two patrol cars blocked the defendant’s vehicles only exit from a dead end alley and two officers approached the passenger and driver side windows. Since the officers lacked reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, the seizure was unlawful. State v. Carriero, COA No. 35560-8-III (Apr. 25, 2019). Judge Korsmo dissented.

Ninth Circuit

Malicious Prosecution. The reversal of plaintiff’s conviction on basis of the exclusionary rule is not a favorable termination, for purposes of a malicious prosecution claim, because the reversal does not address plaintiff’s guilt or innocence. Mills v. City of Covina, No. 17-56343 (9th Cir. Apr. 24, 2019).

Sixth Circuit

Parking Enforcement. The common parking enforcement practice known as “chalking,” whereby parking enforcement officers use chalk to mark the tires of parked vehicles to track how long they have been parked, is a search that is subject to the Fourth Amendment. Neither the automobile exception nor the community caretaking exceptions to the warrant requirement supports chalking. Taylor v. City of Saginaw, No. 17-2126 (6th Cir. Apr. 22, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Obstruction Conviction. RALJ court’s ruling upholding the obstruction conviction affirmed by an equally divided court. Justice Madsen recused herself and no pro tem justice replaced her. See State v. Beck, 56 Wn.2d 474 (1960) (when one justice has recused herself from participating in the decision and the remaining eight justices are equally divided in their decision, the judgment of the trial court stands).

Justices González, Fairhurst, Johnson and Gordon McCloud would hold that a person cannot be convicted of obstructing for refusing to open the door to officers who have a lawful right to make a warrantless entry pursuant to the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. These four justices do not agree that a person has a duty to comply with the police’s demand to open the door under these circumstances, and that conduct that amounts to passive delay will not sustain an obstruction charge.

Justices Stephens, would hold that a person’s refusal to obey lawful commands to take a specific action is conduct sufficient to support an obstruction conviction, and that the officers’ orders to open the door were lawful under the community caretaking exception to the warrant requirement. No constitutional or free speech rights allowed the defendant to refuse the polices’ demand to open the door under the facts of this case. City of Shoreline v. McLemore, No. 95707-0 (Apr. 18, 2019).

Waiver of Counsel. A trial court does not abuse its discretion by denying a competent defendant’s request to represent himself, where the defendant’s responses during the waiver of counsel colloquy indicates a lack of understanding of the consequences. In this case, the defendant indicated that the criminal charges did not pertain to him as he did not enter into a contract with the State and he was not a corporation. State v. Burns, No. 95528-0 (Apr. 18, 2019).

Confrontation Clause Violation. A defendant must raise an objection at trial or waive the right of confrontation. “[R]equiring an objection is in the interests of judicial efficiency and clarity, and provides a basis for appellate courts to review a trial judge’s decision. Where a defendant does not object at trial, ‘nothing the trial court does or fails to do is a denial of the right, and if there is no denial of a right, there is no error by the trial court, manifest or otherwise, that an appellate court can review.’” State v. Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 (2007), is abrogated to the extent its analysis is inconsistent with the waiver approach. State v. Burns, No. 95528-0 (Apr. 18, 2019). Justices Stephens, Madsen, Gordon McCloud and Wiggins concur with the result but disagree with the waiver rule.

Legal Financial Obligations. Social Security Act’s antiattachment statute, 42 U.S.C. § 407(a), does not prohibit the imposition of the mandatory crime victim fund assessment. The sentencing court, however, may not impose a payment schedule while the defendant’s only source of income is social security disability. The county clerk may require the defendant to provide proof that his only assets and income are derived from social security disability benefits. State v. Catling, No. 95794-1 (Apr. 18, 2019). Justice González authored the dissenting opinion which was joined by Justice Yu and Gordon McCloud.

Exclusionary Rule. The proper remedy following suppression of evidence by an appellate court is to vacate the convictions that depended upon the illegally collected evidence and to remand to the trial court for further proceedings. State v. McKee, No. 96035-6 (Apr. 18, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Immigration Enforcement. United States is not entitled to a preliminary injunction suspending a California statute that limits the cooperation between state and local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The statute which prohibits California law enforcement agencies from (1) “‘[t]ransfer[ring] an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination,” (2) “[p]roviding information regarding a person’s release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public,” and (3) “[p]roviding personal information . . . about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s home address or work address unless that information is available to the public,” is consistent with California’s prerogatives under the Tenth Amendment and the anti-commandeering rule. United States v. State of California, No. 18-16496 (9th Cir. 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Landlord Liability. A property owner-landlord is liable for injuries that occur on its property when the lessee has exclusive possession at the time of the accident but only priority use under the lease and the landlord has contracted to maintain and repair the premises. Adamson v. Port of Bellingham, No. 96187-5 (Apr. 11, 2019).

Division One

Necessity Defense. A defendant who was charged with burglary in the second degree after he broke into a pipeline facility and turned off a valve, which stopped the flow of Canadian tar sands oil to refineries in Skagit and Whatcom Counties, was entitled to tender his common law necessity defense to the jury. The defendant contended that his commission of the crime was necessary to avoid harm to the climate, as governments had failed to meaningfully address the crisis of climate change. State v. Ward, COA No. 77044-6-I (Apr. 8, 2019).

Self-Defense. Although the lawfulness of the defendant’s first “warning shot” was not at issue, the giving of a first aggressor instruction without an accompanying lawful defense of another instruction prejudiced the defendant’s ability to argue his theory of the case. State v. Espinosa, COA No. 76894-8-I (Apr. 8, 2019).

Division Two

Mandatory Legal Financial Obligations. A trial court need not consider a defendant’s past, present, or future ability to pay when it imposes the mandatory victim penalty assessment. The trial court may not remit the mandatory LFOs. Imposition of the mandatory LFOs does not violate a defendant’s right to due process. A county clerk possesses the authority to require a defendant to annually verify her SSI status. Requiring a defendant to annually verify her SSI status is not an “enforcement action” that will trigger an inquiry into a defendant’s ability to pay. State v. Conway, COA No. 50032-9-II (Apr. 9, 2019).

Division Three

Cannabis and Zoning. Neither Washington’s Growth Management Act, chapter 36.70A RCW, nor the State’s marijuana licensing laws require the Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board to defer to local zoning laws when making licensing decisions. While the Board may consider zoning restrictions in making licensing decisions, doing so is not required under current marijuana law. A license does not authorize the siting of a marijuana business, zoning laws remain in full force regardless of whether a license is issued. Kittitas County v. Washington State Liquor and Cannabis Board, COA No. 35874-7-III (Apr. 11, 2019).

“Profile Testimony.” Defense counsel provided constitutionally inadequate representation by failing to object to “profile testimony” at trial. While the State may admit evidence about the inability of a felon to lawfully obtain a gun, evidence of the high probability that any gun possessed by a felon is stolen or that one possessing a stolen firearm is likely to flee and discard the firearm when approached by a law enforcement officer constitutes improper “profile testimony” that implicates ER 402, 403, 404(b), and 702. State v. Crow, COA No. 35316-8-III (Apr. 9, 2019). Judge Korsmo dissented. [Editor’s note: The majority’s ruling conflicts with Division II’s opinion in State v. Avendano-Lopez, 79 Wn. App. 706 (1995).]

Offender Scores. The State must produce evidence to support the existence of prior convictions at sentencing. Pre-sentencing discussions of prior history and defense counsel’s acknowledgment of the State’s offender score will not substitute. State v. Crow, COA No. 35316-8-III (Apr. 9, 2019). Judge Korsmo dissented.

Law Enforcement Digest Online Training

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission now offers online training instead of the previous written digests. The online training sessions are of high quality and are applicable to prosecuting attorneys. The January 2019 Law Enforcement Digest is now available.

Articles of Interest

Locked Phones, Computers, or Files. How to resolve a defendant’s assertion of his Fifth Amendment rights when law enforcement seeks to compel the defendant to provide a password for a locked device collected pursuant to a search warrant. Orin S. Kerr, Compelled Decryption and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination, 97 Texas L. R. 768 (2019)


Washington Supreme Court

Aggravated First Degree Murder Sentences and “Juveniles.” A judge has discretion to restructure a defendant’s entire sentence when setting a new minimum term pursuant to RCW 10.95.035 for a defendant who was convicted of additional crimes.. Regardless of any limitations contained in the relevant statutes, the trial court may find an exceptional sentence is warranted and it may adjust the standard sentence to provide for a reduced term or years, for concurrent rather than consecutive sentences, or for both. State v. Gilbert, No. 95814-9 (Apr. 4, 2019).

This week the Court granted review in the following matters:

DUI “Prior Offenses.” State v. Wu, No. 96747-4. King County. Questions presented: Whether a prior conviction meets the definition in RCW 46.61.5055(14)(a)(xii) is a question for the jury or a threshold question for the court in a felony DUI prosecution? COA opinion reported at 6 Wn. App. 2d 679 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Double Jeopardy and Standard of Review for Constitutional Claims. State v. Arndt, No. 95396-1. Kitsap County. Questions presented: Does the double jeopardy clause apply to aggravating circumstances? Does double jeopardy prohibit conviction for both aggravated first degree murder and arson, where the aggravating circumstance and the arson conviction are based on the same evidence? Did the trial court violate the defendant’s constitutional right to present a defense by excluding some of her expert’s testimony and must this error be reviewed de novo? COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Unlawful Practice of Law. State v. Yishmael, No. 96775-0. King County. Questions presented: Is unlawful practice of law a strict liability crime. Is the term “practice of law” unconstitutionally vague? Is it improper to use a court rule as the basis of a jury instruction defining the practice of law? COA opinion reported at 6 Wn. App. 2d 203 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Campaign Finance Disclosure Laws. State v. Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n, No. 96604-4. Questions presented: Whether the Grocery Mfrs. Ass’n, is a “political committee” under the Fair Campaign Practices Act (“FCPA”). Whether enforcement of the FCPA violated the First Amendment in this case. Whether the penalty imposed for the violations of the FCPA should be trebled. COA opinion reported at 5 Wn. App. 2d 542 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Taxation. First Student, Inc. v. State of Wash. Dep’t of Revenue, No. 96694-0. County. Questions presented: Whether assessment of business and occupation taxes upon a company that provides transportation services for compensation to organizations including school districts, youth groups, summer camps, and churches is proper. COA opinion reported at 4 Wn. App. 2d 857 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Division Two

Access Device. An access device need not be able to obtain something of value at the time it is found on a defendant. The access device need only be able to obtain something of value at the time it was last in the possession of its lawful owner. The jury instruction defining “can be used” which was based on State v. Schloredt, 97 Wn. App. 789 (1999), was not an improper comment on the evidence. State v. Sandoval, COA No. 50814-1-II (Apr. 2, 2019).

Water Rules. The Department of Ecology has the authority to promulgate administrative rules that establish minimum instream flows for a river, require mitigation and metering for all new water appropriations, including permit exempt wells, and closes the basin to new surface water withdrawals for part of the year. DOE was not required to consider the “cost” of lost legal rights for potential drillers of future permit exempt wells in its least-burdensome alternatives and cost-benefit analyses. Bassett v. Department of Ecology, COA No. 51221-1-II (Apr. 2, 2019).

SEPA. The City of Puyallup is an “agency with jurisdiction” that can assume lead agency status under WAC 197-11-948 over a development that is outside the City’s limits but within the City’s Growth Management Urban Growth Area, as the City has approval and permitting authority over roadwork and sewer and water services that are part of the proposal. The City may assume lead agency status following the County’s issuance of a mitigated determination of nonsignificance. City of Puyallup v. Pierce County, COA No. 51501-6-II (Apr. 3, 2019).

Division Three

Community Custody Conditions. A claim that conditions of community custody are not related to the circumstances of the crime will not be considered for the first time on appeal where the defendant informed the sentencing judge that he had no objection to the conditions. The phrase “dangerous weapon” is not unconstitutionally vague when it appears with an illustrative list: “dangerous weapons such as hunting knives or a bow and arrow.” The phrase “paraphernalia for the use of controlled substances” is not unconstitutionally vague. “Romantic” in the phrase “of any romantic or sexual relationship” is problematic; the better choice is “of any dating relationship or sexual relationship.” A condition that required the defendant to obtain approval from his corrections officer before engaging in volunteer, church, and travel activities must be modified to provide the corrections department with ascertainable standards to guide its enforcement of the provision. State v. Casimiro, COA No. 35680-9-III (Apr. 2, 2019).

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The March 2019 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.

Ninth Circuit

Eighth Amendment and the Homeless. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precluded the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter. As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter. Martin v. City of Boise, No. 15-35845 (9th Cir. Apr. 1, 2019) (amended opinion).


Washington Supreme Court

RAP 3.1 “Aggrieved Party.” A party is not aggrieved by a favorable decision and cannot properly appeal from such a decision. A party may only appeal if one’s personal rights or pecuniary interests have been adversely affected. Inconvenience alone will not render someone an “aggrieved party.” Reynolds & Associates, Inc. v. Harmon, No. 95575-1 (Mar. 28, 2019). Justices Stephens, Johnson, Fairhurst and Madsen concur in the result only.

Public Interest Exception to Mootness. Matters of statutory interpretation will likely satisfy the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine as the issues are likely to arise again and a definitive answer would be helpful to public officials. Reynolds & Associates, Inc. v. Harmon, No. 95575-1 (Mar. 28, 2019). Justices Stephens, Johnson, Fairhurst and Madsen concur in the result only.

Stays in Unlawful Detainer Cases. A court may stay execution of a writ of restitution after a default judgment is entered in an unlawful detainer case while resolving whether good cause is shown for vacation of the default judgment. The superior court’s inherent equitable authority allows granting an ex parte stay of a default judgment issuing a writ of restitution. Reynolds & Associates, Inc. v. Harmon, No. 95575-1 (Mar. 28, 2019). Justices Stephens, Johnson, Fairhurst and Madsen concur in the result only.

Division One

Therapeutic Courts. RCW 2.30.030 does not allow a trial court to admit a defendant to a therapeutic court without the prosecuting attorney’s consent. Trial court judges, however, do have discretion to establish eligibility criteria and to decline to accept cases. State v. Daniels, COA No. 78154-5-I (Mar. 25, 2019).

Seizure. An officer does not seize a person by entering a home if a person with authority to consent to the entry does so, regardless of whether the officer advised the person of his right to refuse consent. A suspect who is free to ask the officer to leave or to move to a different room is not seized for purposes of article I, section 7. State v. Ho, COA No. 76519-1-I (Mar. 25, 2019).
Miranda. The single officer’s failure to provide Miranda warnings until he said he was going to arrest the defendant does not provide grounds for suppressing the defendant’s confession, when the officer’s conduct did not create a “police dominated atmosphere” that would support a finding of “custody.” State v. Ho, COA No. 76519-1-I (Mar. 25, 2019).

Interview of Allegedly Abused Children. Neither a violation of RCW 26.44.030 nor RCW 26.44.100, which establish guidelines for investigation of alleged abuse will support the suppression of evidence that might establish that abuse was occurring. State v. Ho, COA No. 76519-1-I (Mar. 25, 2019).

Division Two

Coercive Contempt. The trial court did not err by denying a sexually violent predator (SVP) detainee’s motion to lift the contempt sanction imposed for his failure to participate in evaluations with the State’s experts, as the contemnor still has the ability to comply. The contemnor’s ability to purge his contempt does not rest upon the actions of third parties, where the State’s experts will perform the evaluation as soon as the contemnor signs the required forms. To the extent the contemnor believes that complying with the superior court’s order infingers upon his rights, his remedy for that complaint is to ask the superior court to address the specific issues, not to aks that the contempt be lifted. In re Detention of Faga, COA No. 50077-9-II (Mar. 26, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Tribal Police. The exclusionary rule applies in federal court prosecutions to evidence obtained in violation of the Indian Civil Rights Act’s (ICRA) Fourth Amendment counterpart. A tribal officer may rely on a detainee’s response when asking about Indian status in order to determine jurisdiction, but the officer “cannot presume for jurisdictional purposes that a person is a non-Indian – or an Indian– by making assumptions based on that person’s physical appearance.” A tribal officer, who fails to determine whether the person he stopped on a public, nontribal highway crossing a reservation without ascertaining whether the defendant is an Indian will violate the ICRA’s Fourth Amendment parallel if, under the law of a founding era, the tribal officer engages in actions that a private citizen could not lawfully take. In the instant case, the tribal officer’s two searches of the detained non-Indian defendant’s truck could not have been lawfully undertaken by a private citizen under the laws of the founding era. United States v. Cooley, No. 17-30022 (9th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). [Editor’s Note: This opinion does not alter a tribal officer’s authority to detain a non-Indian who has apparently violated a state law for a reasonable time in order to turn him over to state authorities. See generally State v. Schmuck, 121 Wn.2d 373 (1993).]


United States Supreme Court

Treaty Travel Rights. The Yakama Treaty’s provision guaranteeing “the right, in common with citizens of the United States, to ravel upon all public highways” does not exempt individual Yakama members from state laws designed to protect the Yakama’s ability to travel safely alongside non-Indians on the highways. Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den, Inc., No. 16-1498 (Mar. 19, 2019).

Washington Supreme Court

Frye and ER 702. Trial courts should admit evidence under Frye if the scientific community generally accepts the science underlying an expert’s conclusion. Frye does not require every deduction drawn from generally accepted theories to be generally accepted. It does not matter, for Frye purposes, that more investigation and research in the future will likely lead to even better results. A trial court’s decision to admit expert testimony is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard which can result in exclusion of testimony in one case and its admission in another case. L.M. v. Hamilton, No. 95173-0 (Mar. 21, 2019). Justices González, Johnson and Stephens concurred in the result only.

Division One

Voluntary Intoxication Defense in Civil Cases. A trial court abuses its discretion by excluding evidence of the plaintiff’s blood alcohol level when the affirmative defendant of voluntary intoxication under RCW 5.40.060(1) has been pled. Gerlach v. The Cove Apartments, LLC, COA No. 77179-5-I (Mar. 18, 2019).

Division Two

Involuntary Treatment. RCW 71.05.050 authorizes a medical center to initially detain an individual until the hospital staff has the opportunity to evaluate the person only if it has some legitimate basis grounded in the requirements of RCW 71.05.050 to involuntarily detain the person at triage. Dalen v. St. John Medical Center, COA No. 50391-3-II (Mar. 19, 2019).

Hostile Work Environment Claims. A public defender’s claim against the Public Defender Association (PDA) under the Washington Law Against Discrimination (WLAD) for hostile work environment, based upon the actions of one of her clients, can proceed because an employer may be subject to liability for a hostile work environment claim based on a nonemployee’s harassment of an employee in the workplace when the employer does not take immediate and/or corrective actions when it knows about the harassing conduct. The Industrial Insurance Act (IIA) doe not bar the employee’s negligence claim because it is not clear that the employee’s PTSD and related injuries constitute a compensable “injury” under the IIA. LaRose v. King County, COA No. 50858-3-II (Mar. 19, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Contempt. This case concerns contempt sanctions imposed against the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS) for failing to timely complete competency evaluations for criminal defendants. A court’s oral ruling determining contempt and imposing remedial sanctions triggers the running of the contempt sanctions. The State is not required to pay interest on the accrued contempt sanctions. State v. Sims, No. 95479-8 (Mar. 14, 201. Argued Sept. 20, 2018. [Editor’s Note: The Court’s analysis re interest should apply equally to awards under the Public Records Act.]

Jail Medical Costs. In the absence of a prior interlocal agreement, a county is not entitled to seek reimbursement from cities for the cost of medical services provided to jail inmates who were (1) arrested by city officers and (2) held in the county jail on felony charges. Thurston County v. City of Olympia, No. 95586-7. Argued Feb. 21, 2019).

Division Two

Credit for Presentence Electronic Home Monitoring. The 2015 amendment to RCW 9.94A.505 precludes felons convicted of violent crimes from receiving credit for time served on electronic home monitoring (EHM) before sentencing. The denial of credit for presentence EHM does not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy and does not violate violent offenders’ equal protection rights. State v. Kim, COA No. 50951-2-II (Mar. 8, 2091).

Division Three

Marijuana and Necessity. A defendant in possession of more than 40 grams of marijuana (in this case 1800 grams) who asserts a necessity defense must present a medical expert witness to support the defense. The trial court d did not abuse its discretion by precluding the defendant’s expert from testifying where the proposed expert testimony was first disclosed after the State rested. State v. Ruelas, COA No. 35029-1-III (Mar. 12, 2019).

Preliminary Appearances. The superior court retains authority to hold a preliminary hearing and enter related orders, even after a district court case has been filed and the district court has assumed exclusive original jurisdiction over the trial process. A district court may not refuse to accept preliminary appearance hearing orders from the superior court. State v. Stevens County District Court Judge, COA No. 35966-2-III (Mar. 12, 2019).

Law Enforcement Digest Online Training

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission now offers online training instead of the previous written digests. The online training sessions are of high quality and are applicable to prosecuting attorneys. The December 2018 Law Enforcement Digest is now available.

New York City Bar

RPC 3.3(f). Rule 3.3(d) of the New York Rules of Professional Conduct, which is identical to Washington RPC 3.3(f), requires a lawyer to disclose to the tribunal material facts, including adverse facts, “that will enable the tribunal to make an informed decision.” While the disclosure obligation does not apply to proceedings in which an opposing party appearing pro se is absent by choice, the rule applies where the adverse party has not been provided with notice, an opportunity to be heard on the application and time to appear, as well as to proceedings, such as search warrant applications, in which interested parties are not permitted to receive notice and to participate. New York City Bar Professional Ethics Committee, Defining “Ex Parte Proceeding” Under Rule 3.3(d), Formal Opinion 2019-1 (Feb. 4, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

This week the Washington Supreme Court accepted review in the following matters:

Pro Se Defendants. State v. Davis, No. 96663-0. King County–State’s Petition. Issues: Under what circumstances does a pro se defendant voluntarily leave trial court proceedings? What is the standard of review on appeal when a pro se defendant claims his departure from the courtroom was not voluntary? Under what circumstances may a trial court remove a pro se defendant from the courtroom against his will, and what standard of review applies to such a removal? COA opinion reported at 6 Wn. App. 2d 43 (2018). Petition for review is available here.

Incompetency. State v. McCarthy, No. 96653-2. Spokane County–State’s Petition. Issues: Under what circumstances, if any, should the trial court order another competency evaluation of an accused after a jury finds the accused competent to stand trial? COA opinion is reported at 6 Wn. App. 2d 94 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Rendering Criminal Assistance. State v. Davis, No. 96599-4. State’s Petition – Kitsap County. “State’s petition for review granted; Pry’s petition for review denied; motion to consolidate denied.” Issues: Whether a charging document for first degree rendering criminal assistance must include language from definitional statutes to be constitutionally adequate. COA opinion is unreported. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Building Permits and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Church of the Divine Earth v. City of Tacoma, No. 96613-3. “Granted only as to whether the city is liable for damages because it knew or should have known its action was unlawful.” COA opinion reported at 5 Wn. App. 2d 471 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

State Recovery for Bridge Collapse. State Dep’t of Transp. v. Mullen Trucking 2005, LTD., No. 96538-2. Issues: Whether RCW 46.44.020 grants the State immunity from liability when a motorist strikes overhead structures with more than 14 feet of clearance. Does the statute prevent the State’s fault from being allocated for purposes of determining the comparative fault of the parties? COA opinion reported at 5 Wn. App. 2d 787 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Public Records Act. Serv. Emps Int’l Union Local 925 v. Dep’t of Early Learning, No. 96578-1. Issue Whether Initiative 1501 applies to public records act request that were still pending on the day the Initiative became effective or only to requests made after the effective date of the initiative. COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Division Three

Possession With Intent Jury Instructions. The identity of the controlled substance should appear in the elements instruction for the charge of possession with intent to deliver. When the jury’s verdict includes the identity of the controlled substance, its omission from the “to convict” instruction is harmless as to the defendant’s sentence. State v. Rivera-Zamora, COA No. 35184-0-III (Mar. 7, 2019).

Judge’s Comments Regarding Credibility Determinations. A veteran trial judge’s comments regarding her experience, as well as in the case law, that disclosure discrepancies by young children are not uncommon does not implicate ER 201. The judge did not treat this information as a “fact,” merely offering it to explain her reasoning for not being swayed by the defense argument that the child’s story was inconsistent. Judges are allowed to bring their knowledge and understanding of the world into the courtroom. State v. N.B., COA No. 35513-6-III (Mar. 7, 2019). [Editor’s Note: This opinion also includes a concise summary of the correct test to apply to a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence in light of a defendant’s claim that a witness was not credible.]

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The February 2019 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.


United States Supreme Court

Federal Judges. “[F]ederal judges are appointed for life, not for eternity.” A federal court may not count the vote of a judge who dies before the decision is issued. Yovino v. Rizo, No. 18-272 (Feb. 25, 2019).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Appeals. A presumption of prejudice applies when trial counsel fails to file an appeal as instructed in cases where a defendant signed an appeal waiver. The presumption is appropriate as no appeal waiver serves as an absolute bar to all appellate claims. Garza v. Idaho, No. 17-1026 (Feb. 27, 2019).

Division One

Traffic Stops. The passenger’s consent to a search of her purse was not vitiated by police conduct during the traffic stop. While an officer in a traffic stop may not request identification from a passenger for investigatory purposes absent an independent reason to justify the request, an officer may check the passenger’s identification to determine if the passenger has a valid driver’s license when considering whether to allow the passenger to drive the car from the scene. Once the arrested driver consented to a search of the vehicle, it was not unreasonable for the detective to ask the passenger if she consented to a search of the purse she left in the car. State v. Lee, COA No. 77038-1-I (Feb. 25, 2019).

Division Three

DOSA. A trial court exceeds its statutory sentencing authority by imposing an additional term of community custody to be served in the event that the defendant fails to complete his or her DOSA program. In re Postsentence Review of Milne, COA No. 36093-8-III (Jan. 17, 2019, publication ordered Feb. 28, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

First Amendment and Unions. Washington’s authorization of an exclusive bargaining representative for subsidized childcare providers did not infringe on the plaintiff childcare provider’s First Amendment rights. The State’s exclusive bargaining arrangement served the compelling—and enduring—state interest of labor peace. Miller v. Inslee, No. 16-35939 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2019).


United States Supreme Court

Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment. The Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment which guards against abuses of the government’s punitive or criminal law-enforcement authority is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is binding on states. Timbs v. Indiana, No. 17-1091 (Feb. 20, 2019). [Editor’s note: This case is likely to have little impact in Washington. Article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution already prohibits the imposition of excessive fines and the Washington Supreme Court assumed application of the Eighth Amendment clause to states in 1999. See State v. WWJ Corp., 138 Wn.2d 595, 604 (1999).]

Washington Supreme Court

Collateral Consequences of Convictions. Plurality decision. Lead opinion (Justices Yu, Stephens, Madsen and González): The Department of Early Learning’s (DEL)regulations prohibiting any individualized consideration of a previously convicted person’s qualifications at the administrative level violates a person’s federal right to procedural due process when the person’s conviction is many years old and was committed when the person was in her twenties. Concurring opinion (Justice Gordon McCloud): DEL did not violate the person’s federal right to procedural due process, but did violate her right to substantive due process. DEL may not permanently disqualify the petition based solely on her 1988 conviction. Dissent (Justices Fairhurst, Owens, Wiggins and Johnson): No violation of procedural due process and petitioner has not met the heavy burden of showing that the decision to permanently disqualify her from providing childcare services based on her conviction for the violent crime of attempted robbery is not rationally related to the legitimate government interest in protecting children. Fields v. State Dept. of Early Learning, No. 95024-5 (Feb. 21, 2019).

Statute of Limitations. The statute of limitations is not an essential element of a crime. Including facts related to the statute of limitations in the information may put a defendant on notice of a defense based on the statute of limitations, but their omission does not render an information constitutionally deficient. State v. Merritt, No. 95115-2 (Feb. 21, 2019). Justices Gordon McCloud, Fairhurst and González concurred in the result, but found that the State violated RCW 10.37.050, which requires the charging document to contain sufficient facts to establish that the offense was committed within the statute of limitations. A challenge on statutory grounds, however, must be brought prior to trial through a demurrer or a request for a bill of particulars.

Division One

Juror Compensation. The appellants have failed to show that the low statutory rate of pay for jurors gives rise to a disparate impact claim based on economic status under wither the Washington Law Against Discrimination or the constitution. The fact that jurors or lower economic status will be unable to serve due to the low juror pay does not give rise to an implied disparate impact claim under the amount jurors are paid under the “no juror exclusion” statute, RCW 2.36.080(3). The “no juror exclusion” statute which protects the opportunity to be considered for jury service and imposes the obligation to serve as a juror when summoned, does not guarantee the right to actually serve on a jury when summoned. If “the Appellants premise that economic hardship excusals should be characterized as exclusions that violate RCW 2.36.080(3), the appropriate remedy would be to prohibit economic hardship excusals—it would not be to increase the rate of juror pay.” Because jury service is a civic duty and not employment, jurors are not employees under the Washington Minimum Wage Act (MWA), chapter 49.46 RCW. Rocha v. King County, COA No. 51823-6-II (Feb. 21, 2019). Judge Bjorgen dissented.

Division Two

Inmate Visitation. The Department of Corrections denial of a sex offender’s request for visitation with his minor children did not violate the defendant’s due process rights, as the due process clause does not create a protected liberty interest in prison visitation between an inmate and his children. The sentencing court’s order amending and clarifying the inmate’s sentence is not binding on DOC because the sentencing court did not have personal jurisdiction to order DOC to provide supervised visitation. DOC’s denial of visitation was not arbitrary or capricious. In re Personal Restraint of Gossett, COA No. 49525-2-II (Feb. 20, 2019).

Sealing of Juvenile Record. The offender’s 1993 conviction of indecent liberties by forcible compulsion remains a class B felony that the superior court must seal under the plain language of RCW 13.50.260(4)(b), if the specified statutory conditions are met. Once the record for that conviction is sealed, the conviction is treated as if it never occurred, allowing the offender’s first degree child molestation conviction to be sealed under the plain language of RCW 13.50.260(4)(a). State v. P.M.P., COA No. 50821-4-II (Feb. 20, 2019).

Division Three

Warrantless Breath Tests. A warrantless breath test is allowed under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution under the search incident to arrest exception to the warrant requirement. State v. Nelson, COA No. 35273-1-III (Feb. 19, 2019). Judge Lawrence-Berrey dissented.

Pretrial Reform Task Force

Pretrial Reform. The final report of the Task Force lists 19 recommendations in three categories — pretrial services; risk assessment; and data collection. Final Recommendations Report.

Pennsylvania Supreme Court

Prosecutors and Facebook. Prosecuting attorney suspended from the practice of law for one year and one day for improper ex parte contacts and for creating a fictitious Facebook account for the purpose of “liking” establishments suspected of selling illegal bath salts, so that her office could be alerted to events where the establishments provided free “samples,” which could be obtained and tested. Attorney encouraged staff to send “friend” requests from the fictitous Facebook account to criminal defendants and their family members. Facebook conduct violated RPC 8.4(c), 4.3(a), 4.3(c), 5.3(b), 5.3(c)(1) and 5.3(c)(2). Office of Disciplinary County v. Miller, No. 32 DB 2017 (Feb. 8, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Amendment of Charges. Plurality opinion. The principles for which there were at least five votes are (1) the Pelkey rule (109 Wn.2d 484 (1987)) that prohibits the State from amending charges after it rests to anything other than a lesser degree or lesser included offense is a bright line rule that requires a formal announcement from the State that it “rests its case,” (concurring and dissenting justices) and (2) CrR 2.1(d) is violated as the defendant is actually prejudiced when the State amends the information prior to resting and the amendment adds a new element that the defendant could not address in his voir dire, opening statement, or cross-examination of any of the State’s witnesses. (concurring and lead justices). State v. Gehrke, No. 95635-9 (Feb. 14, 2019). Lead opinion authored by Justice Wiggins and joined by Justices Madsen, Stephens, and Gordon McCloud. Concurring opinion authored by Chief Justice Fairhurst and joined by Justice Owens. Dissenting opinion authored by Justice González and joined by Justices Johnson and Yu.

DOSA. While a trial court can waive imposition of a sentence within the standard range, the trial court may not “waive” sentence enhancements or portions of the base sentence to get to a range that is low enough to accommodate the residential-based DOSA’s sentence-length prerequisites. If the base sentence range plus enhancements results in a midpoint of the standard range sentence that exceeds 24 months, the court may impose only a prison-based DOSA. State v. Yancy, No. 95992-7 (Feb. 14, 2019).

Division Three

Prosecuting Attorney Conflicts. When an elected prosecutor has previously represented a criminally accused person in a case that is the same, or substantially the same, as the one currently pending prosecution, the entire prosecutor’s office should ordinarily be disqualified from further participation. A prosecutor’s office is not subject to bright-line recusal rules. While office-wide recusal under the Supreme Court’s test is the norm, an exception can exist in extraordinary circumstances. Extraordinary circumstances are informed not by the nature of the elected prosecutor’s current activities, but by his or her prior work as counsel, including (1) whether the prosecutor was privy to privileged information and (2) the nature of the case giving rise to the elected prosecutor’s conflict of interest. The elected prosecuting attorney’s recusal from the case and lack of participation at any time during tenure as the prosecuting attorney is insufficient to allow the office to remain on the case. State v. Nickels, COA No. 35369-9-III (Feb. 7, 2019). Judge Korsmo dissented.

Restitution and Possession of Stolen Property. Restitution in possession of stolen property cases is limited to damage that the State can prove was caused by the defendant’s conduct. The State is not relieved of this burden simply because the property possessed by the defendant was stolen recently. State v. Romish, COA No. 35643-4-III (Feb. 7, 2019). Judge Korsmo dissented.

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The January 2019 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.


Washington Supreme Court

Gunwall and Art. I, § 7. A Gunwall analysis is not required to justify an independent analysis of article I, section 7 in new contexts. It is not sufficient, however, “for parties to simply ‘mention our state constitution in their briefs’ and note that article I, section 7 is often more protective than the Fourth Amendment.” “Parties must provide argument and relevant authorities supporting the specific outcome they seek in light of ‘the constitutional text, the historical treatment of the interest at stake as reflected in relevant case law and statutes, and the current implications of recognizing or not recognizing an interest.’” State v. Mayfield, No. 95632-4 (Feb. 7, 2019).

Attenuation Doctrine. To comply with the heightened protections of article I, section 7, the attenuation doctrine must be narrow and apply only where intervening circumstances have genuinely severed the causal connection between official misconduct and the discovery of evidence.

We caution that the attenuation doctrine we adopt today must be narrowly and carefully applied. The State bears the burden of proving that the attenuation doctrine applies and that evidence is admissible despite a violation of article I, section 7. Armenia, 134 Wn.2d at 14. To meet its burden, the State must prove that unforeseen intervening circumstances genuinely severed the causal connection between official misconduct and the discovery of evidence. The State cannot meet its burden by merely showing that there are one or more additional proximate causes of the discovery of evidence. The question of whether intervening circumstances constitute a superseding cause is a highly fact-specific inquiry that must account for the totality of the circumstances, just as it is in the context of tort law. See Maltman v. Sauer, 84 Wn.2d 975, 982, 530 P.2d 254 (1975).

We also caution that the narrow attenuation doctrine we adopt today is entirely independent of the modem attenuation doctrine used by federal courts. As such, it is irrelevant to our state attenuation doctrine whether suppression in one case will deter similar misconduct in the future. It is also irrelevant whether the officer’s misconduct was merely negligent or was instead flagrant and purposeful. The only question is whether unforeseeable intervening actions genuinely severed the causal connection between official misconduct and the discovery of evidence.If not, then the attenuation doctrine does not apply, and the evidence must be excluded in accordance with article I, section 7 and our state exclusionary rule.

The newly adopted narrow state attenuation doctrine is not satisfied by an unlawfully detained suspect’s consent to search after Ferrier warnings. State v. Mayfield, No. 95632-4 (Feb. 7, 2019). Justice Johnson authored a concurring opinion.

This week the Court granted review in the following cases this week:

Persistent Offenders and Cruel Punishment. State v. Moretti, No. 95263-9. Grays Harbor County. “Granted on persistent offender sentence issue only.” Questions presented: (1) Does the Persistant Offender Accountability Act violate Article I, § 14, and the less-protective Eighth Amendment because it does not allow the sentencing court to consider the characteristics of the offender and his relative youth and culpability at the time of the commission of a predicate crime? (2) Should an additional factor be added to the Fain test: whether the sentence is proportional in light of the characteristics of the offender? (3) Whether automatic imposition of life without the possibility of parole based on a “strike” crime committed as a youthful offender violates the state and federal prohibitions against cruel and cruel and unusual punishment. COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Persistent Offenders and Cruel Punishment. State v. Nguyen, No. 95510-7. King County. “Granted only as to the issue of whether the persistent offender sentence is cruel & unusual punishment.” Question presented: “Where Nguyen was only 20 years old when he committed one of the predicate offenses, did imposition of a life sentence constitute cruel punishment in violation of the federal and Washington constitutions?” COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Persistent Offenders and Cruel Punishment. State v. Orr, No. 96061-5. Spokane County. “Granted only as to the persistent offender issue.” Question presented: Whether automatic imposition of life without the possibility of parole based on a predicate “strike” crime committed as a youthful offender violates the state and federal prohibitions against cruel and cruel and unusual punishment. COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Restitution. State v. Barbee, No. 96490-4. King County. “Granted only on the issue of whether the trial court had authority to enter a second restitution award.” Question presented: When an appellate court remands a case for resentencing may the court of appeals enter a new restitution order? COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review pleadings available here.

Insurance Reimbursement. Group Health Cooperative v. Coon, No. 96516-1. COA opinion reported at 4 Wn. App. 2d 737 (2018). Petition for review pleadings available here.

Division One

Ex Post Facto and Community Custody. It violates the ex post facto clause to replace the variable term of community custody authorized by former RCW 9.94A.715(1) (2006), with the fixed term set by Laws of 2009, ch. 375, § 5. This is true even though the fixed term is the midpoint of the previously applicable variable range. In re Personal Restraint of Alston, COA No. 76497-7-I (Feb. 5, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Coroner Subpoena Power. A medical examiner or coroner (collectively “coroner”) must request a jury from the superior court before an inquest can begin. A coroner has the power to issue a subpoena only once he or she has requested a jury. who never begins an inquest does not have authority to issue a subpoena. Once an inquest is properly begun, the subpoena power granted by RCW 36.24.050 includes the power to bring a witness in to testify and the power to require a witness to bring physical items with him or her. A coroner may demand only that the witness bring the evidence to the inquest jury. The coroner is not entitled to summon the witness or the evidence to his or her office. BNSF Railway Company v. Clark, No. 95015-6 (Jan. 31, 2019).

Sexual Harassment and Employer Liability. Under the plain language of the Washington Law Against Discrimination, employers are directly liable for the sexual harassment of members of the public by their employees, just as they would be if their employees turned customers away because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation. Floeting v. Group Health Cooperative, No. 95205-1 (Jan. 31, 2019). Justices Madsen and Wiggins dissented.

Division Two

Early Release of “Juvenile Offenders.” Under RCW 9.94A.730(3), which allows an individual who has been sentenced under the Sentencing Reform Act for crimes committed prior to his/her eighteenth birthday to petition the Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board (ISRB) for release after 20 years of confinement, does not allow the ISRB to delay release and to impose pre-release conditions after it finds that an individual is not likely to reoffend. The offender in this case, however, is not now entitled to release because the ISRB subsequently found that he was likely to commit new criminal law violations based upon his subsequent conduct. In re Personal Restraint of Pugh, COA No. 50055-8-II (Jan. 29, 2019). Judge Lee dissented, contending that the offender was entitled to immediate release.

Division Three

Firearms and Terry Stops. The presence of a firearm in public is insufficient, standing alone, to support an investigatory stop. The presence of an individual openly carrying a handgun in a “high-risk setting,” is insufficient, standing alone, to support an investigatory stop. State v. Tarango, COA No. 35305-2-III (Jan. 31, 2019).

Police Department Policies and Local Initiatives. A local initiative may not be used to repeal an ordinance that codifies the city police department’s policy limiting questioning of individuals about immigration status and citizenship status. Global Neighborhood v. Respect Washington, COA No. 35528-4-III (Jan. 29, 2019).

Eleventh Circuit

Prosecutors and First Amendment Retaliation. A district attorney’s false statement made in retaliation for a former exonerated prisoner’s attempts to obtain legislative compensation for his wrongful convictions violated the prisoner’s First Amendment rights. The prisoner, however, is not entitled to compensation because the prisoner’s right to be free from retaliation under the First Amendment was not clearly established when the district attorney made the statement. Echols v. Lawton, No. 17-13843 (11th Cir. Jan. 25, 2019).


Division Two

“Free Crimes Aggravating Factor. The free crimes aggravator, RCW 9.94A.535(2)(c), applies when a defendant is charged with two current offenses and only one offense would go unpunished. State v. Smith, COA No. 50397-2-II (Jan. 23, 2019).

Public Records and Sex Offenders. Neither SSOSA or SSODA evaluations are exempt from disclosure. under the Uniform Health Care Information Act. Information in sex offender registration forms are not exempt under RCW 42.56.230(7)(a). RCW 42.56.230(7)(a) only exempts personal information that is actually submitted as part of an application for a driver’s license or identicard. RCW 4.24.550 is not an “other statute” that bars release of sex offender registration records. Juvenile records not found within the official juvenile court file are confidential under ch. 13.50 RCW and subject to the “other statute” exemption to the PRA. SSODA evaluations are exempt from disclosure under the “other statute” exemption as they are not part of the official juvenile court file. The Criminal Records Privacy Act does not mandate the release of juvenile SSODA records as the Act does not supplant ch. 13.50 RCW. Zink v. Pierce County, COA No. 48378-5-II (Aug. 21, 2018, amended and published Jan. 23, 2019).

Public Records Act. An agency is not required to first identify an exemption to disclosure before providing third-party notification of a PRA request pursuant to RCW 42.56.520(2). An agency does not “deny” access to records until it finishes producing all responsive documents. Accordingly, a requester may not initiate a lawsuit to compel compliance with the PRA until after the agency finishes producing all responsive documents. An agency is not required to provide records by e-mail or “the cloud.” Zink v. Pierce County, COA No. 48378-5-II (Aug. 21, 2018, amended and published Jan. 23, 2019).

Pseudonyms. The superior court erred by allowing sex offender registration complain level 1 sex offenders to proceed as Does in their action to prevent disclosure of records under the Public Records Act (PRA), without first conducting an Ishikawa analysis. Zink v. Pierce County, COA No. 48378-5-II (Aug. 21, 2018, amended and published Jan. 23, 2019).

Involuntary Commitment. A superior court is not required to consider voluntary treatment status when determining continued commitment under RCW 71.05.280. In re Detention of S.B., COA No. 50856-7-II (Jan. 23, 2019).

Ninth Circuit

Tribal Sovereign Immunity and Contracts. A tribe’s anticipatory defense of sovereign immunity to a state court lawsuit arising from a particular contract with the State of Washington, does not form a basis for federal question jurisdiction. Stillaguamish Tribe of Indians v. State of Washington, No. 17-35722 (9th Cir. Jan. 22, 2019).


Division Three

Signaling Turns. RCW 46.61.305(2) declares that a driver must, “when required,” continuously signal an intention to turn or cross lanes during at least the last one hundred feet traveled before turning or moving lanes. A driver, who moved left from a middle lane to a dedicated left turn lane while signaling his intention to change lanes, is not required to reactive his turn signal before turning left from the reserve lane unless public safety is implicated. Evidence discovered when a driver is stopped for failing to signal a turn when public safety is not implicated must be suppressed. State v. Brown, COA No. 35304-4-III (Jan. 17, 2018). Chief Judge Lawrence-Berrey dissented.

Public Records Act. A requester need not initiate legal action in order to be a prevailing
party entitled to fees under RCW 42.56.550(4). The requester substantially prevailed against the County’s request to withhold attorney invoices in their entirety and on his claim that the County must submit its proposed redactions to the court when requested in camera review. Asotin County v. Eggleston, COA No. 35720-1-III (Jan. 17, 2019).

Law Enforcement Digest Online Training

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission now offers online training instead of the previous written digests. The online training sessions are of high quality and are applicable to prosecuting attorneys. The most recent training is November 2018. Past trainings may be found here. Notices of future training sessions will appear in the weekly roundup as they are posted on the CJTC website.

Ninth Circuit

Vehicle Stops. Law enforcement officers may not extend a lawfully initiated vehicle stop because a passenger refuses to identify himself, absent reasonable suspicion that the individual has committed a criminal offense. United States v. Landeros, No. 17-10217 (9th Cir. 2019).


United States Supreme Court

Qualified Immunity. The Ninth Circuit erred by applying a high level of generality to a question of qualified immunity. Rather than looking at the “right to be free of excessive force,” the court should have looked at whether clearly established law prohibited the officers from stopping and taking down a man in the specific circumstances presented in the case. Escondido v. Emmons, No. 17-1660 (Jan. 7, 2019).

Washington Supreme Court

Law of the Case Doctrine and Accomplice Liability. The State’s identification by name of the victim of the assault did not require the State to prove that the accomplice knew the names of all potential victims. All the State needed to prove was that the defendant had general knowledge of her coparticipant’s substantive crime. State v. Dreewes, No. 95551-4 (Jan. 10, 2019).

Sealing of Appellate Court Briefs. The defendant’s motion to seal those portions of the briefing that contained argument regarding her financial circumstances and ability to pay appellate costs was properly denied as the defendant did not establish that failure to seal would result in a “serious and imminent threat” to her interest. State v. Dreewes, No. 95551-4 (Jan. 10, 2019).

The Supreme Court granted review of the following cases this week:

Public Records. Hoffman v. Kittitas County, No. 96286-3. What impact should a finding of bad faith have upon the sanction imposed for a Public Records Act violation? COA decision reported at 4 Wn. App. 2d 489 (2018). Petition for review available here.

Identity Theft. State v. Cortes, No. 96397-5. Chelan County. In RCW 9.35.021(1), did the legislature intend the terms “means of identification” and “financial information” to create two alternative means of committing the crime of Identity Theft Second Degree? Are “owning,” “possessing,” and “control” alternative means of committing the crime of unlawful possession of a firearm? COA opinion reported at 5 Wn. App. 2d 86 (2018). Petition for review available here.

Community Custody. State v. Wallmuller, No. 96313-4. Mason County– State’s Petition. Whether a community custody condition prohibiting the defendant from loitering or frequenting “places where children congregate” is unconstitutionally vague. COA opinion reported at 4 Wn. App. 2d 698 (2018). Petition for review available here.

Jury Voir Dire and Murder Cases. State v. Pierce, No. 96344-4. King County– State’s Petition. “State’s petition for review granted; Pierce’s petition for review granted in part; consolidated with State of Washington v. Michael William Bienhoff, et al., Supreme Court number 96345-2″ Should State v. Townsend, 142 Wn.2d 838, 846 (2016), which prohibits a jury the the murder case they are being selected for does not involve the death penalty be overruled? COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review available here.

Jury Voir Dire and Murder Cases. State v. Bienhoff, No. 96345-2. King County – State’s Petition. “Granted, consolidated with State of Washington v. Karl Emerson Pierce, et al., Supreme Court number 96344-4″ Should State v. Townsend, 142 Wn.2d 838, 846 (2016), which prohibits a jury the the murder case they are being selected for does not involve the death penalty be overruled? COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review available here.

Timber Trespass and Agency. Porter & Zimmer v. Kirkendoll, No. 96214-6. COA opinion reported at 5 Wn. App. 2d 686 (2018). Petition for review available here.

Division Two

Civil Commitments and Involuntary Medication. A compelling state interest justified the involuntary administration of antipsychotics when doing so is likely to decrease the length of time a respondent will be detained for treatment. Sufficient evidence supported the order in this case as other alternatives would not address the symptoms of the respondent’s illness and would not enable to respondent to recover to the point where he could be discharged. In re Detention of B.M., COA No. 50699-8-II (Jan. 8, 2019). Judge Bjorgen dissented.

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The December 2018 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.

Ninth Circuit

Second Amendment and Non-Citizens. A statute prohibiting the possession of firearms by an alien unlawfully present in the United States withstands constitutional scrutiny and is a valid exercise of Congress’s authority. United States v. Torres, No. 15-10492 (9th Cir. Jan. 9, 2019).


Washington Supreme Court

Ballot Title Challenges. Ballet title objections must be raised within 10 days of the public filing of that ballot title. A challenge asserting an alleged deficiency in the proposed levy lift language that was brought nearly 4 years after the ballot title at issue in this case is dismissed as untimely. End Prison Indus. Complex v. King County, No. 95307-4 (Dec. 27, 2018).

Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction. The omission of the last sentence of WPIC 4.01, which states, “The defendant has no burden of proving that a reasonable doubt exists,” does not present a manifest constitutional error, which may be reviewed for the first time on appeal pursuant to RAP 2.5(a)(3). The Supreme Court mandated the use of WPIC 4.01 to promote uniformity and simplicity in defining a core concept of our justice system. The failure to instruct in the words of WPIC 4.01 is not a constitutional error. State v. Chacon, No. 95194-2 (Dec. 27, 2018). Justices González, Yu, Gordon McCloud and Fairhurst dissented.

Division One

County Liability and Oso Landslide. An action for damages predicated upon a county’s adoption of a flood control plan is barred by former RCW 86.12.037. An action for damages predicated upon a county’s involvement in the construction of a cribwall is barred by RCW 36.27.982, as a cribwall is a “fish enhancement project.” Slide victims cannot maintain a claim for damage to riparian rights where none of the slide victims own riparian rights. The county acted reasonably when it held a meeting to warn community members of the risk of future landslides and did not make promises that induced reliance on the part of the homeowners that caused them to refrain from seeking help elsewhere. The county’s act of distributing information at the community meeting did not expose the residents to the risk of the coming landslide. Regelbrugge v. Snohomish County, COA No. 76376-8-I (Dec. 31, 2018).

Division Two

Confrontation Clause and Data Extraction. The technician who performed the cell phone extraction was not a “witness” for purposes of the confrontation clause as this person made no comparison or conclusions from the extracted data. The Sixth Amendment right to confrontation was satisfied by the defendants’ ability to cross-examine the detective who drew conclusions from the extracted data. State v. Ramirez, COA No. 49245-8-II (Jan. 3, 2019).

Testimonial Hearsay and Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners. A deceased victim’s statements to a SANE nurse is testimonial hearsay under the primary purpose test. The admission of the statements at trial violated the confrontation clause. State v. Burke, COA No. 50053-1-II (Dec. 27, 2018).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Plea Negotiations. Defense counsel’s provision of misinformation during the plea negotiation process of the potential sentence range the defendant faced if found guilty on all charges at trial amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The matter is remanded to the trial court with a requirement that the State reoffer the final 50-month plea offer, subject to the defendant’s and the court’s acceptance of a guilty plea. If either the court rejects the guilty plea or the defendant declines to plead guilty, the defendant’s trial conviction and sentence will stand. State v. Drath, COA No. 49403-5-II (Dec. 27, 2018). Judge Melnick dissented on the grounds that the defendant did not establish prejudice as she failed to show a reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s deficient representation, she would have accepted the State’s final plea offer.

Washington State Attorney General

Marijuana and Clean Air. Local clean air agencies have broad authority to enforce the Clean Air Act, even if the Department of Ecology has not set minimum standards. Local authorities may use state regulations as a minimum standard when regulating odors. A regional clean air agency must follow the procedures set forth in the Clean Air Act prior to any rulemaking or enforcement actions. No statute deprives local clean air agencies of their authority to enforce the Clean Air Act with respect to marijuana. AGO 2018 No. 10 (Dec. 26, 2018).


Division One

Right to Impartial Jury. The trial court did not violate the represented defendant’s right to an impartial jury by not sua sponte dismissing a prospective juror for cause. While the juror admitted domestic violence was an emotional issue, the juror did not express unqualified statements expressing actual bias. The juror further assured both counsel that he could look at the case as instructed and based on the evidence despite his feelings that African American men are more prone to violence. State v. Phillips, COA No. 76518-3-I (Dec. 17, 2018).

Smith Declarations. The victim’s sworn written statement to responding officers that the defendant choked her was properly admitted pursuant to ER 801(d)(1)(i). The victim’s testimony that she did not remember whether she was choked, kicked, or nearly thrown down the stairs was inconsistent with her prior statements. State v. Phillips, COA No. 76518-3-I (Dec. 17, 2018).

No Contact Orders. The entry of a no contact order barring the defendant from any contact with the victim and his step-daughter did not make it impossible for the defendant to parent his own child. Although not having contact with the victim will make access to his child more difficult, the defendant can still have supervised visitation without the mother present. State v. Phillips, COA No. 76518-3-I (Dec. 17, 2018).

Adoptive Admissions. The proponent of adoptive admissions must submit and the court must give an instruction to the jury that informs the jury that it cannot consider proposed adoptive admissions as evidence unless it finds under the circumstances that the defendant heard, understood, and acquiesced in the statements. In the instant case it was error to admit text messages as adoptive admissions. While the defendant received and responded to the text messages sent by the victim, he did not affirmatively agree with the accusatory text message statements she made. The defendant’s deflection–moving the discussion in another direction – is insufficient for a jury to conclude that the defendant acquiesced or acceded in the truth of the statements. It was error, therefore, to admit the statements pursuant to ER 801(d)(2)(ii). State v. Hill, COA No. 75947-7-I (Dec. 17, 2018).

Offender Scores. A non-comparable out-of-state conviction will not prevent washout of prior offenses under RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c). State v. Marquette, COA No. 77197-3-I (Dec. 17, 2018).

Felony DUI and Qualifying Prior Offenses. The existence of four (now three) or more prior DUI offenses within 10 years is an essential element of felony DUI, and must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Whether a prior conviction meets the statutory definition of prior offense contained in RCW 46.61.5055 is a threshold question of law to be decided by the trial court. Whether a reckless driving conviction involved alcohol is a threshold question for the court, not a question for the jury. The State’s presentation of certified copies of the original criminal complaint and the district court’s judgment and sentence was sufficient to allow the judge to determine that the reckless driving convictions involved alcohol. State v. Wu, COA No. 77045-4-I (Dec. 17, 2018). Justice Becker dissented. [Editor’s note: This opinion creates a split with Division Two. See State v. Mullen, 186 Wn. App. 321, 227 (2005).]

Division Two

Involuntary Commitment. A respondent may be gravely disabled under former RCW 71.50.020(17)(b), despite the lack of prior hospitalizations or law enforcement interventions. A respondent does not have a constitutional or statutory right to a less restrictive alternative placement. Thus, a respondent’s due process rights are not violated when the State does not submit its recommendation for outpatient treatment. In re Detention of D.W., COA No. 50817-6-II (Oct. 16, 2018, publication ordered Dec. 18, 2018).

Felony Firearm Offender. When the evidence at trial was that either a knife or a firearm was used in the commission of the second degree assault, a defendant may only be ordered to register as a felony firearm offender when the jury renders a special verdict finding that the weapon used was a firearm. State v. Rios, COA No. 50035-3-II (Dec. 18, 2018).

First Aggressor Instruction. The first aggressor jury instruction, WPIC 16.04, must be modified to advise the jury that words alone are not sufficient to make a defendant the first aggressor in an altercation. State v. Kee, COA No. 50203-8-II (Dec. 18, 2018).

Division Three

Time for Trial. Release from custody pursuant to the prosecuting attorney’s oral motion extended the time for trial deadline by an additional 30 days. The lack of a written motion filed at least five days before the court hearing does not render the release order invalid. State v. Maling, COA No. 35272-2-III (Dec. 18, 2018). Judge Fearing dissented.

Law Enforcement Digest Online Training

The Washington State Criminal Justice Training Commission now offers online training instead of the previous written digests. The online training sessions are of high quality and are applicable to prosecuting attorneys. The most recent training is October 2018. Past trainings may be found here. Notices of future training sessions will appear in the weekly roundup as they are posted on the CJTC website.

Ninth Circuit

Vehicle Impounds. Impounding vehicles of drivers who have never been issued a driver’s license for a period of 30-days when the drivers attempted to have friends with valid licenses take possession of the vehicle was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Although the state’s interest in keeping drivers off the road provided a “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, the application of the exception turns on the facts and circumstances of each case. Continued impoundment of these vehicles was not justified as a deterrence or penalty. Sandoval v. City of Santa Rosa, No. 16-16122 (9th Cir. Dec. 21, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Double Jeopardy. Facts that increase the mandatory minimum and are subject to the Sixth Amendment’s right to trial by jury will also be subject to the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause. If a jury unanimously acquits a jury of an RCW 10.9.020 aggravating circumstances, the prohibition on double jeopardy bars retrial on those aggravating circumstances. State v. Allen, No. 95454-2 (Dec. 13, 2018).

Hydraulic Projects. The Department of Fish and Wildlife’s permitting authority over hydraulic projects includes projects above the ordinary high-water line that affect state waters. Spokane County v. State Department of Fish and Wildlife, No. 95029-6 (Dec. 6, 2018). Justice Gordon McCloud authored a concurring opinion which was joined by Justice Gonzàlez.

Division One

Insanity Acquittees. An order granting or denying an individual who was found not guilty of a crime by reason of insanity’s petition for final release pursuant to RCW 10.77.200 is appealable as a matter of right under RAP 2.2(a)(13). The order denying final release is affirmed as continued supervision is required for public safety due to the nature of the petitioner’s mental illness. State v. Coleman, COA No. 76851-4-I (Dec. 10, 2018).

Preliminary Appearances. CrRLJ 3.2.1 requires an individual who is subjected to a warrantless arrest and held in jail, to be brought before a judicial officer for a preliminary hearing the next court day following the arrest. The filing of a notice of disqualification does not waive a defendant’s right to a timely preliminary appearance hearing. Khandelwal v. Seattle Municipal Court, COA No. 78058-1-I (Dec. 3, 2018).

Early Release of “Juveniles.” Early release is presumptive under RCW 9.94A.730(3) unless the ISRB determines that the petitioner is more likely than not to reoffend. The ISRB abused its discretion by denying release to a woman who committed murder at age 15, who had no infractions since 2008 and whose psychological evaluation indicated she was a low risk to reoffend. In re Personal Restraint of Brashear, COA No. 77047-1-I (Dec. 3, 2018).

School Searches. Drugs found in a 14-year-old child’s backpack in a search conducted by the vice principal were suppressed because the search was not reasonable when the child was not a student of the school, the vice principal knew nothing about the child’s history or school record, there was no record of a drug problem at the school, and there was no exigency to conduct the search as police officers were already on their way to the school. State v. A.S., COA No. 76823-9-I (Dec. 3, 2018).

Division Two

Involuntary Commitment of Persons Incompetent to Stand Trial. The law does not provide mentally ill persons found incompetent to stand trial for felony charges the legal opportunity to become good faith voluntary patients. In re the Detention of P.P., COA No. 50773-1-II (Dec. 11, 2018).

Exceptional Sentences. The “substantially exceeds” aggravating factor, RCW 9.94A.535(3)(y), applies to a conviction for the crime of hit and run (injury). The jury’s finding by special verdict alone provides a sufficient basis on which to justify a defendant’s exceptional sentence. A trial court errs by making additional findings of fact in support of the exceptional sentence. State v. Perry, COA No. 49913-4-II (Dec. 11, 2018).

Aggravated First Degree Murder Sentences for “Juveniles.” A minimum term of 48 years was not supported by substantial evidence of “irreparable corruption, permanent incorrigibility, and irretrievable deparvity,” where the defendant’s last prison infraction occurred six years prior to the hearing to set the minimum term and did not exhibit a pattern related to the murder he committed. The court failed to meaningfully consider juveniles” underdeveloped executive brain functioning and the greater prospects for reform from a crime committed prior to a defendant’s eighteenth birthday. State v. Delbosque, COA No. 49792-1-II (Dec. 4, 2018).

Division Three

Public Trial. The public trial right does not apply to rulings excluding witnesses under ER 615. The public trial right does apply to motions in limine that are raised before testimony. A new trial is ordered because the chambers conference on the motion to exclude a witnesses’ testimony was not a de minimis violation of the public’s right to open courts. State v. Karas, COA No. 34899-7-III (Dec. 13, 2018). Judge Fearing dissented on the grounds that the public trial right extends to an ER 615 motion.

Public Records Act and Polygraphs. An individual’s action to enjoin disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA), which consisted of a six-page pleading containing an ex parte motion requesting a TRO and eventual permanent injunction, a declaration of facts, and a memorandum of authorities, “substantially complied” with RCW 4.28.020’s statutory requirement of filing a complaint to vest the superior court with jurisdiction over the case. A polygraph report taken by peace officers as part of a pre-employment screening qualifies as “other related materials submitted with respect to an applicant” which is exempt under RCW 42.56.250(2). The police officer, however, is not entitled to enjoin dissemination of the record that the agency elected to disseminate in response to a PRA request as the redacted polygraph report discloses numerous instances of theft and dishonesty and the public has an interest in knowing whether a particular officer is law abiding. Sheats v. City of East Wenatchee, COA No. 35555-1-III (Dec. 11, 2018). [Editor’s note: Both the Wenatchee City Attorney’s Office and the Douglas County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office should be commended for their handling of potential impeachment evidence.]

Traffic Stops. RCW 46.61.670, which makes it a traffic infraction to operate a vehicle with one or more wheels off a designated roadway, affords no room for error. Even a minor, momentary violation meets the terms of the statute and can provide a basis for a traffic stop and imposition of an infraction. RCW 46.61.140(1) only applies in circumstances where a vehicle momentarily crosses from one lane of travel into a neighboring lane traveling the same direction. State v. Alvarez, COA No. 34711-7-III (Dec. 4, 2018). Judge Lawrence-Berrey dissented.

Public Trial. Defendant forfeited appellate review by expressly declining to seek a new trial after being advised of the factual basis for a public trial violation. State v. Hernandez, COA No. 34816-4-III (Dec. 6, 2018).

Attorney Withdrawal. A defendant’s absence from a hearing on defense counsel’s motion to withdraw is not per se reversible error. A defendant who is seeking relief due to his absence bears the burden of demonstrating the reason for the withdrawal motion and why his input might impact the court’s ruling on the motion. State v. Hernandez, COA No. 34816-4-III (Dec. 6, 2018).

Credit for Time Served. A defendant may not receive credit for time served for a community custody violation in a prior unrelated felony case upon conviction of a new felony case. Post Sentencing Petition of Allery, COA No. 35284-6-III (Oct. 16, 2018, publication ordered Dec. 4, 2018).

Washington State Attorney General

Mandatory Sick Leave. Employees who fall within the definition of “employee” for minimum wage purposes are entitled to paid sick leave under RCW 49.46.200-.210. The definition of “employee” is that contained in RCW 49.46.010(3). “Employee” does not include “Any individual who holds a public elective or appointive office of the state, any county, city, town, municipal corporation or quasi municipal corporation, political subdivision, or any instrumentality thereof, or any employee of the state legislature.” RCW 49.46.010(3)(l). Effective January 1, 2018, employees who had worked for the employer in question for at least 90 days became entitled to use sick leave. Under RCW 49.46.210 and WAC 296-128-620, employers are required to carry over up to 40 hours of unused paid sick leave during the following year, whether that leave is “front-loaded” or “accrued.” AGO 2018 No. 9 (Dec. 5, 2018).

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The November 2018 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.


Washington Supreme Court

Retaliatory Discharge. An employee presents sufficient evidence to survive summary judgment in an action under the Washington Law Against Discrimination where by demonstrating that the employer “knew or suspected” the employee had previously been involved in a protected activity. An employer has actual knowledge that the employee engaged in an alleged protected action, i.e. filed a prior lawsuit, even though the employer does not know the substance of the prior lawsuit. The “knew or suspected” standard incorporates the actual knowledge standard and also encompasses cases in which the employer suspects that an employee engaged in protected action. This standard applies, for example, when a supervisor has actual knowledge that a complaint was made but has only a suspicion regarding who made the complaint and subsequently takes an adverse employment action based on that suspicion. Cornwell v. Microsoft Corp., No. 94846-1 (Nov. 29, 2018). Justice Gordon McCloud was the lone dissenter.

Division One

Unlawful Practice of Law. RCW 2.48.180(2)(a), which states that the unlawful practice of law occurs when a “nonlawyer practices law, or holds himself or herself out as entitled to practice law, is not unconstitutionally vague. RCW 2.48.180(2)(a) is a strict liability offense. Using GR 24 to define the practice of law in a jury instruction is not error. State v. Yishmael, COA No. 76802-6-I (Nov. 26, 2018).

Community Custody. RCW 9.94A.701(9) precludes a court from imposing a exceptional period of incarceration below the standard range so as to accommodate a mandatory term of community custody. State v. Thibodeaux, COA No. 76818-2-I (Nov. 26, 2018).

Duty to Register as a Sex Offender. Notice in a judgment and sentence as to termination of the duty to register as a sex offender should be consistent with RCW 9A.44.140(3), which does not require a court order to affirmatively relieve some sex offenders of the duty to register. State v. Thibodeaux, COA No. 76818-2-I (Nov. 26, 2018).

DNA Fee. The DNA collection fee may only be stricken when a defendant with prior convictions establishes that the State has already collected his DNA. State v. Thibodeaux, COA No. 76818-2-I (Nov. 26, 2018).

14-Day Involuntary Treatment Commitment Order. Former RCW 71.05.154 (2013) did not create an affirmative obligation for a designated mental health professional to consult with an emergency room physician before making the decision to detain a person, when there was no examining emergency room physician present or involved in the person’s care. In re Detention of C.A.C., COA No. 77173-6-I (Nov. 26, 2018).

Community Custody Conditions. A condition that bars the defendant from “associat[ing] with known users or sellers of illegal drugs” is not unconstitutionally vague. The condition only applies to persons who are known to the defendant to be users or sellers of illegal drugs and who are currently engaging in the activity. The phrase “illegal drugs” includes Marijuana which is still prohibited by federal law. In re Personal Restraint of Brettell, COA No. 76384-9-I (Nov. 19, 2018).

Division Two

Residential Burglary. The fact that nobody had leaved in a house for 15 months prior to the burglary, that the windows had been boarded up and the broken front door had been secured, and there was no evidence of a plan for someone to resume living in the residence at the time of the burglary, did not prevent the house from being a “dwelling.” Other factors supported a finding that the house constituted a dwelling included that the house had been used for lodging for almost 30 years, the house had never been used for anything other than lodging, the house was fully furnished with furniture in every room and appliances, and the owner of the house left clothing and personal belongings in the house. Finally, the owner, who was forced to leave because of age-related health problems, continued to regard the house as her abode. State v. Hall, COA No. 50543-6-II (Nov. 27, 2018).

Washington Attorney General

LEOFF Plan 1 Members and Medical Marijuana. A city or county disability board may permissibly reimburse LEOFF Plan 1 members for their authorized use of medical marijuana, if that use is properly authorized and if the board determines use of marijuana is medically necessary. The potential effect, if any, of a board’s reimbursement decision on city or county eligibility for federal funding depends on federal policy and the conditions of specific federal grants. AGO 2018 No. 8 (Nov. 21, 2018).

Municipal Research and Services Center (MRSC)

Gifts. Quick primer on the law regarding the acceptance of gifts by county employees. Paul Sullivan, Oh Boy! A Gift! (Nov. 26, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Gross Negligence. “To survive summary judgment in a gross negligence case, a plaintiff must provide substantial evidence of serious negligence. In determining whether the plaintiff has provided substantial evidence, the court must look at all the evidence before it, evidence that includes both what the defendant failed to do and what the defendant did. If a review of all the evidence suggests that reasonable minds could differ on whether the defendant may have failed to exercise slight care, then the court must deny the motion for summary judgment. But if a review of all the evidence reveals that the defendant exercised slight care, and reasonable minds could not differ on this point, then the court must grant the motion.” Applying this test, summary judgement was properly granted to DOC in a failure to supervise case. DOC did not act with gross negligence in a case in which a defendant, who was subject to supervision, murdered his long-time girlfriend 15 days after he was released from prison. DOC reasonably relied upon the girlfriend’s explicit assurances that she was not in a relationship with the defendant, that she was moving to a place where he could not fine her, and that she would call the police if she saw them. The defendant’s mother had also verified in writing that the defendant was sleeping at her home. Harper v. State, No. 95511-5 (Nov. 21, 2018).

Division Two

Self-Incrimination. Article I, section 9 provides the same protection as the Fifth Amendment. Neither a corporation nor corporate officers acting on behalf of the corporation are protected by the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination. The same rule applies to a limited liability company. An individual must invoke the protections of the Fifth Amendment as to specific topics or on a question-by-question basis, blanket assertions of privilege are insufficient. Brelvis Consulting LLC v. State, COA No. 50235-6-II (Nov. 20, 2018).

Civil Investigative Demand. A civil investigative demand (“CID”) issued and served pursuant to RCW 19.86.110 is not an unconstitutional intrusion into private affairs without authority of law. A corporation’s business records are not “private affairs” for purposes of article I, section 7. A CID is not an unreasonable search under the Fourth Amendment. Brelvis Consulting LLC v. State, COA No. 50235-6-II (Nov. 20, 2018). Brelvis Consulting LLC v. State, COA No. 50235-6-II (Nov. 20, 2018).

Article I, Section 7. The protections of article I, section 7 are not limited to Washington citizens. The constitutional guarantee extends to all persons within the state of Washington. Brelvis Consulting LLC v. State, COA No. 50235-6-II (Nov. 20, 2018).


Controlled Substance Homicides. Newly created Drug-Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit is available to the public. Worth viewing when making charging decisions and other discretionary decisions in these cases. Health in Justice Action Lab, Northeastern University School of Law, Drug Induced Homicide Defense Toolkit (Preliminary Version Oct. 12, 2018). Most current version will be available here.


Division One

Felony Traffic Sentencing. While prior serious traffic offenses are excluded from calculation of the offender score for vehicular homicide, they are properly included in the offender score calculation for felony hit-and-run. The 24-month vehicular homicide enhancements are added to the standard sentence range for vehicular homicide, not to the standard sentence range for any other current offense. In re Personal Restraint of Raymundo, COA No. 73998-1-I (Nov. 13, 2018).

Division Two

Pre-Trial Restraint. A trial court’s failure to make an individualized determination on the necessity of pretrial restraints violates a defendant’s due process rights. State v. Lundstrom, COA No. 49709-3-II (Nov. 15, 2018).

Division Three

Competency to Stand Trial. A court must continue to monitor the mental health of the accused and must order another mental health evaluation if, subsequent to a jury finding that the accused is competent to stand trial, a substantial change in circumstances raises a reasonable doubt as to the accused’s competency. State v. McCarthy, COA No. 34859-8-III (Nov. 15, 2018). Judge Siddoway dissented.

“Wash-Out.” Incarceration for willfully failing to pay legal financial obligations will not prevent a prior offense from washing out for purposes of calculating the offender score. Such detention is not pursuant to a felony conviction. State v. Schwartz, COA No. 35171-8-III (Nov. 15, 2018). [Editor’s Note: Division Three’s decision is inconsistent with Division One’s holding in State v. Mehrabian, 175 Wn. App. 678, review denied, 178 Wn.2d 1022 (2013).]

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The October 2018 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.

Florida Supreme Court

Will You Be My Friend. An allegation that a trial judge is a Facebook “friend” with an attorney appearing before the judge, standing alone, does not constitute a legally sufficient basis for disqualification. Law Offices of Herssein and Herssein, P.A., v. United States Automobile Association, No. SC17-1848 (Fla. Nov. 15, 2018).


United States Supreme Court

Age Discrimination in Employment Act. The federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act applies to all state and local governments, regardless of how many employees they have. Mount Lemmon Fire Dist. v. Guido, No. 17-587 (Nov. 6, 2018).

Washington Supreme Court

Expiration of Prison Sentence. When a defendant receives consecutive SRA sentences, DOC has the authority to hold the defendant in custody up to the sum of the multiple terms– i.e. three consecutive, 114-month terms, allow DOC to hold a defendant in custody up to 342 months. Personal Restraint of Gronquist, No. 94971-9 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Competency Restoration. The defendant’s due process rights were violated when he was detained in the county jail for 76 days before his admission to Washington State Hospital for competency restoration treatment. Dismissal of charges with prejudice for this violation of the defendant’s due process rights is not warranted. State v. Hand, No. 94902-6 (Nov. 8, 2018). Justices Madsen and Stephens would, if timely asserted by the defendant, apply the Sixth Amendment speedy trial analysis to any delay in the start of competency restoration treatment.

Privacy Right to Medical Records. The Uniform Health Care Information Act, chapter 70.02 RCW, does not carve out a duty to non-health-care providers to protect the privacy of a patient’s health care information. The Department of Correction was not required to obtain authorization from an inmate before removing and reviewing medical records that were in the inmate’s cell. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Search Warrants. A search warrant must be supported by probable cause that evidence of the crime can be found at the place to be searched. “Evidence of the crime” is not limited to evidence proving a crime was committed. “Evidence of the crime” can relate to evidence that is relevant to sentencing and/or to a defendant’s ability to form the mens rea of the crime. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Particularity Requirement. A search warrant that authorized the search and seizure of the prison’s inmate property and storage room, the prison’s administration building, as well as any ant all records for an inmate, which was accompanied by the search warrant affidavit that was both physically attached and incorporated by reference, authorized the search of a medical records room located in the prison and adequately described the items to be seized. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

CrR 3.1. Statements made by a defendant prior to being charged with a crime were not subject to suppression for an alleged violation of CrR 3.1. Defendant was placed into contact with an attorney at 9:00 a.m., the morning following his 9:00 p.m. arrest for murdering a prison guard. The delay in putting the defendant into contact with an attorney was justified because (1) detectives
needed to obtain a search warrant, (2) there was a risk to prison security and the lockdown of other inmates, (3) there was concern for the safety of the defendant, and (4) restrictions were placed on the facility due to the lockdown. Any alleged violation, moreover, was harmless as the defendant provided a videotaped statement after he met with two attorneys who both advised him to not speak to the police. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Jail Detention. A defendant, who was detained at the Snohomish County Jail, following his arrest for the murder of a prison guard, in the absence of a contract between the Department of Corrections and Snohomish County in violation of RCW 72.68.050, is not entitled to the suppression of statements made while housed at the jail. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

CrR 3.2.1(d)(1). While CrR 3.2.1(d)(1) requires that a person be brought before a judge “as soon as practicable” following a warrantless arrest, does not support overruling State v. Hoffman, 64 Wn.2d 445 (1964), which makes any unnecessary delay in the preliminary appearance one factor to consider when determining whether a confession is involuntary, rather than an automatic basis for excluding statements. Custody for purposes of Miranda does not establish “detention” for purposes of CrR 3.2.1. The defendant, who was already in prison serving a life sentence for another crime, was not detained for purposes of CrR 3.2.1 until he was booked for the murder of Officer Biendl. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Voluntariness of Confessions. The defendant’s videotaped statements were not rendered involuntary by the harsh conditions of solitary confinement that the defendant was subjected to following the murder of prison Officer Biendl. The defendant was repeatedly advised of his Miranda rights, met with attorneys twice before his first interview with police, met with an attorney before his third interview, was calm and cooperative, selectively answered questions, and confessed because of the intolerable guilt arising from his actions. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

ER 403. An objection that evidence is not relevant is insufficient to preserve a claim that the trial court should have excluded the evidence on ER 403 grounds of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, or misleading the jury. A trial court is only required to conduct an ER 401 analysis to a relevancy objection. A trial court is not also required to conduct an ER 403 analysis when a party asserts a relevancy objection. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Opinion as to Guilt. A detective’s out-of-court questions to the defendant and their answers were properly admitted at trial. Neither of the post-Miranda-waiver questions– what the defendant would say of Officer Biendl’s death if she could hear him now and whether the defendant was sorry that Officer Biendl was dead – went to the defendant’s state of mind and were not unduly prejudicial. The detective’s reference to “the murder” was also not substantially prejudicial. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Exercise of Constitutional Rights. While the State may not draw adverse inferences on a defendant’s exercise of his constitutional rights, statements of a defendant regarding his desire for a speedy resolution of murder charges were properly admitted to demonstrate the defendant’s reasoning for speaking with the police and that his statements were voluntary and credible. It was also not error to admit the defendant’s statements that he was disregarding his attorney’s advice by speaking with the detectives. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Jury Selection. The prosecuting attorney did not violate the prohibition upon private communications between prosecutors and jurors, when during voir dire, he smiled at the jurors, made eye contact with the jurors, and thanked the excused jurors for their service. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Premeditation. The trial court did not err by utilizing WPIC 26.01.01 instead of the deffendant’s proposed premeditation instruction. The prosecuting attorney did not conflate intent to kill with premeditation in his closing arguments. State v. Scherf, No. 88906-6 (Nov. 8, 2018).

Division One

Duress. Duress is not a defense to the aggravating factors of robbery and kidnapping when the charge is aggravated first degree murder. State v. Whitaker, COA No. 75924-8-I (Nov. 5, 2018).

Closing Argument. The prosecutor erred by inviting the jury to imagine what the victim was thinking and feeling in the hours before her murder. The prosecutor also erred by telling the jurors that duress is not a defense to murder and by defining duress for them after the trial court refused to instruct the jury on duress regarding the aggravating factors and because the defense did not argue that the defendant should be acquitted because he killed the victim out of fear of a co-participant. State v. Whitaker, COA No. 75924-8-I (Nov. 5, 2018).

Juror Issues. The bailiff did not violate CrR 6.15(f)(1) by separating a juror who communicated safety concerns from the other jurors and after discerning the nature of the juror’s distress, promptly notified the court and counsel of the juror’s concerns. The defendant’s right to a public trial was not violated by the bailiff’s initial out-of-court communications with the juror where the juror’s safety concerns were promptly referred to the court and all subsequent discussion of the juror’s safety concerns occurred in open court in the presence of the defendant. The dismissal of the juror, who suffered a heart attack and who could not return for deliberations did not violate the defendant’s right to a unanimous jury. A juror’s statement after hearing the medical examiner’s testimony and prior to the start of deliberations that “I hope they fry the fucking bastard,” inheres in the verdict and will not support a motion for a new trial. State v. Whitaker, COA No. 75924-8-I (Nov. 5, 2018).

Autopsy Photos. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting 15 of 100 autopsy photographs over the objection of the defendant. The probative value of the photographs in helping to illustrate the medical examiner’s testimony outweighed their prejudicial effect. State v. Whitaker, COA No. 75924-8-I (Nov. 5, 2018).

Pro Se Defendants. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying the defendant’s multiple requests for standby counsel. A pro se defendant, who was removed from court following disruptive conduct and the defendant’s statement that “You can hold your trial without me,” did not voluntarily absent himself from the trial. Questioning witnesses after the defendant was removed from the courtroom violated the defendant’s right to representation. The trial court should have appointed counsel to question the witnesses’ in the defendant’s absence, recessed to give the defendant time to calm down, have the defendant attend trial via video conference or provide the defendant with a recording of the missed testimony and allow the defendant the opportunity to cross-examine the witness, or restrained the defendant in the courtroom. State v. Davis, COA No. 76806-9-I (Nov. 5, 2018).

Division Two

Community Custody. Attempted failure to register as a sex offender is not a sex offense for which community custody is authorized. In re Postsentence Review of Thompson, COA No. 50767-6-II (Nov. 6, 2018).

Ninth Circuit

Confrontation Clause and Physical Confrontation. Testimony from victim from her hospital bed in Minnesota via two-way video violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The victim’s inability to travel to the trial location was due to a temporary pregnancy-related condition, so a continuance of the trial was a more appropriate solution. Testimony from a remote location requires proof that the witness is not being coached or influenced during testimony, that the witness is not improperly referring to documents, that the witness has an adequate view of the courtroom, and that the jury has an adequate view of the witness. United States v. Carter, No. 16-50271 (9th Cir. Nov. 2, 2018).

Fifth Amendment and Subpoenas. A record custodian for a collective entity, even a small, closely-held entity, may not invoke his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination to resist producing the collective entities’ documents. In re Twelve Grand Jury Subpoenas, No. 17-17213 (9th Cir. Nov. 8, 2018). [Editor’s note: This decision should apply equally to subpoenas issued in Chapter 10.27 and 10.29 RCW proceedings.]


Washington Supreme Court

Batson. The third step of a Batson challenge to a peremptory strike of a juror in Washington is modified. At the final step, the trial court must ask whether an objective observer could view race or ethnicity as a factor in the use of peremptory strike. If so, then the strike must be denied and the challenge to that strike must be accepted. The State’s use of a peremptory strike against the only remaining African-American jury based upon the juror’s statements that voir dire was a “waste of time”, his specific knowledge of the move 12 Angry Men, and his brining outside evidence into jury deliberations as a juror in a previous trial violates this new test as the juror’s statements were not that different from answers provided by jurors who were not subject to peremptory strikes. State v. Jefferson, No. 84853-4 (Nov. 1, 2018). Justices Yu and González concurred with the lead opinion but she “remain(s0) convinced that nothing short of complete abolishment of the peremptory challenge, coupled with further development of our “for cause” challenge jurisprudence, will get us on the right path toward finally eradicating racial bias in jury selection.” Justices Madsen, Johnson and Stephens objected on the grounds that GR 37 was never meant to be a constitutional rule backed by constitutional protections.

Certificate of Discharge. The effective date for the issuance of a certificate of discharge for an offender who is not under Department of Corrections custody is the date the offender completed all the terms of the sentence, rather than the date the court received notice that the offender completed all terms of the sentence. State v. Hubbard, No. 95012-1 (Nov. 1, 2018).

The Washington Supreme Court granted review of the following cases this week:

Concealed Pistol License. Barr v. Snohomish County Sheriff, No. 96072-1. Snohomish County–County’s Petition for Review. Questions presented: (1) May an individual convicted of a Class A felony as a juvenile use RCW 13.50.260 as an alternative mechanism to judicially restore his/her firearm rights, thereby avoiding the restoration prohibition stated in RCW 9.41.040? (2) Does RCW 9.41.070 require a law enforcement agency to issue a Concealed Pistol License to an individual with a Class A felony that has been sealed pursuant to RCW 13.50.260? COA opinion reported at 4 Wn. App. 2d 85 (2018). Appellate court pleadings available here.

Impound Inventories. State v. Peck, No. 96069-1 and State v. Tellvik, No. 96073-9. Kittitas County – State’s Petition for Review. Question presented: Whether the contents of a zippered CD case located in a stolen vehicle in the course of an inventory search were obtained in violation of article 1, section 7, when neither occupant of the stolen truck asserted any possessory interest in the CD case. COA opinions are unpublished – Peck and Tellvik . Appellate court pleadings available here.

Double Jeopardy and Cell Phone “Ping.” State v. Muhammad, No. 96090-9. Asotin County. Questions presented: Whether the warrantless search of transmissions between a cell phone and cell towers to obtain real-time location information was justified by exigent circumstances. Whether the exclusionary rule applies to the search of the vehicle, where the search of the car was independently authorized by a search warrant supported by probable cause and any connection between the “ping” and the search of the vehicle was sufficiently attenuated to dissipate any taint.. Whether entry of convictions and sentences for rape and felony murder predicated upon the same rape violates double jeopardy or merger. COA opinion reported at 4 Wn. App. 2d 31 (2018). Appellate court pleadings available here.

Home Financing. Wash. State Housing Fin. Comm’n v. Nat’l Homebuyers Fund, Inc., No. 96063-1. Questions presented: Whether the Washington State Housing Finance Commission has standing to bring a declaratory judgment action to prohibit a California non-profit from engaging in mortgage finance activities in Washington. Whether the California non-profit may lawfully engage in mortgage finance activities in Washington. COA opinion is unpublished. Appellate court pleadings available here.

Division One

Fellow Officer and Warrantless Arrests. Under the post-State v. Bravo Ortega, 177 Wn.2d 116 (2013), amendment to RCW 10.31.100, the fellow officer rule applies to arrests for non-felony offenses. The plain language or RCW 10.31.100(1), moreover, allows for application of the fellow officer rule to arrests for select non-felony offenses, including theft. State v. Perez, No. 76902-2-I (Oct. 29, 2018).

Ninth Circuit

“Ruse” Warrantless Entries. A “ruse” entry is when a known government agent misrepresents his purpose in seeking entry. An officer’s warrantless entry into a home via a ruse such as by asking the homeowner for assistance in a fictitious criminal investigation, violates the Fourth Amendment. Whalen v. McMullen, No. 17-35267 (9th Cir. Oct. 31, 2018).


Division One

Involuntary Commitments. A court may dismiss a meritorious petition for involuntary commitment for a person who, as a result of a mental disorder, “presents a likelihood of serious harm, or is gravely disabled.” A nonlicensed facilities provision of treatment under a single bed certification that is not specific to the detained person and that fails to include a description of why the detained person being committed can receive appropriate mental health treatment as the facility will not require the reversal of a 14-day commitment order as it is not a total disregard of the involuntary treatment act requirements. In re Detention of C.V., COA No. 77057-8-I (Oct. 22, 2018).

Division Three

Eyewitness Identification. Defense counsel must assert an ER 403 objection that a witness’s identification of the defendant is more prejudicial than probative due to its unreliability to preserve the issue on appeal. RAP 2.5(a)(3) does not all the claim to be raised for the first time on appeal as the error is not manifest and the claims regarding suggestiveness rely upon empirical studies or law enforcement policies that were not offered in the trial court and law enforcement was never questioned about their reasoning for engaging in two pretrial identification interviews and for not using a double-blind procedure. State v. Ramirez, COA No. 34872-5-III (Aug. 30, 2018, partial publication ordered Oct. 23, 2018).

Historic Cell Site Analysis. An FBI special agent’s cell site analysis was admissible under Frye and ER 702. The fact that the agent used propriety software to map out cell tower strengths did not cause her testimony to fall outside of Frye. The agent’s testimony was helpful to the jury as she made the jury aware of the imprecision of cell site information. State v. Ramirez, COA No. 34872-5-III (Aug. 30, 2018, partial publication ordered Oct. 23, 2018).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. Defense counsel’s failure to ask the trial court to instruct the jury to review the self-defense instruction when the deliberating jury sent two questions to the judge which showed that the jury did not understand the law of self-defense, was prejudicially deficient performance that requires a reversal of the defendant’s first degree assault with a deadly weapon conviction. State v. Backemeyer, COA No. 35218-8-III (Oct. 23, 2018). Judge Korsmo dissented.

American Bar Association

Lawyers’ Obligations After and Electronic Data Breach or Cyberattack. “Model Rule 1.4 requires lawyers to keep clients “reasonably informed” about the status of a matter and to explain matters “to the extent reasonably necessary to permit a client to make an informed decision regarding the representation.” Model Rules 1.1, 1.6, 5.1 and 5.3, as amended in 2012, address the risks that accompany the benefits of the use of technology by lawyers. When a data breach occurs involving, or having a substantial likelihood of involving, material client information, lawyers have a duty to notify clients of the breach and to take other reasonable steps consistent with their obligations under these Model Rules.” Formal Opinion 483 (Oct. 17, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Cruel Punishment. Adopting a new “categorical bar analysis” for sentencing challenges, the Court holds that sentencing an individual to life without parole or early release for aggravated first degree murders committed prior to their eighteenth birthday is unconstitutional under article I, section 14 of the Washington Constitution. State v. Bassett, No. 94556-0 (Oct. 18, 2018). Justice Stephens authored the dissenting opinion which was joined by Justices Johnson, Madsen and Chief Justice Fairhurst.

Division Three

Unlawful Redemption of Food Stamp Benefits. RCW 9.91.144, which makes it a class C felony to redeem food stamps in violation of 7 U.S.C. sec. 2024(c) or RCW 74.04.500, applies only to merchants and others who seek reimbursement by the government for food stamp benefits previously used by a consumer. A person who improperly uses another person’s benefits to purchase food at a grocery store does not fall within the statute’s ambit. State v. Gray, COA No. 35357-5-III (Oct. 16, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Death Penalty. Washington’s death penalty is invalid because it is imposed in an arbitrary and racially biased manner. Because the use of the death penalty is unequally applied—sometimes by where the crime took place, or the county of residence, or the available budgetary resources at any given point in time, or the race of the defendant, the death penalty, as administered in our state, fails to serve any legitimate penological goal; thus, it violates article I, section 14 of our state constitution. In reaching this conclusion, the Court did “not decide whether the prior cases [upholding the constitutionality of the death penalty] were incorrect and harmful at the time they were decided” because the scope of article I, section 14 “is not static.” The Court’s conclusion “that race has a meaningful impact on imposition of the death penalty” was made “by way of legal analysis, not pure science.” The Court leaves open the possibility that the legislature may enact a carefully drafted statute that will pass constitutional muster, stating that “[T]o hold that the death penalty is per se unconstitutional would be to substitute our moral judgment for that of the people of Washington.” State v. Gregory, No. 88086-7 (Oct. 11, 2018). Justices Johnson, Owens, Stephens and Madsen concurred, asserting that additional state constitutional principles compel the majority’s decision.

Law of the Case Doctrine. The law of the case doctrine prohibits reconsideration of alleged guilt phase errors where the remand following the first appeal was solely for the purpose of conducting a new penalty phase hearing. State v. Gregory, No. 88086-7 (Oct. 11, 2018).

LUPA and Building Permit Processing Fees. The imposition of a permit application fee falls under the statutory definition of a land use decision under chapter 36.70C RCW. Hence, LUPA applies when parties are challenging, as excessive, permit application fees assessed when a building or a land use permit application is submitted for processing. Community Treasures v. San Juan County, No. 94463-6 (Oct. 11, 2018).

Division One

DOSA. The provisions of RCW 9.94A.664(4), which allows imposition of total confinement equal to one-half the midpoint of the standard range of the underlying sentence as a sanction when the recipient of a residential drug offender sentencing alternative fails to comply with the terms of her judgment and sentence, does not apply to an offender who fails to report to residential treatment. A court may impose a term of incarceration anywhere within the standard range upon an offender who fails to report to residential treatment. State v. Church, COA No. 76573-6-I (Oct. 8, 2018).

Improper Court Filings. CR 11 sanctions were properly levied upon a lawyer who filed documents with the court to help facilitate the media’s access to them.

The court file is not a bulletin board for attorneys to post information for the press. Neither is it an archive for communications between lawyers. It exists so attorneys may provide the court with documents relevant to the proceedings pending before it so that the court can consider this information when resolving a request for relief. Attorneys may communicate with the press through a number of avenues. But the court file does not exist for the purpose of facilitating this communication.

Heckard v. Murray, COA No. 77019-5-I (Oct. 8, 2018).

Indeterminate Sentence Review Board. Under the plain language of RCW 9.95.115, the IRSB is not prohibited from releasing a person on parole unless the person is subject to civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW. A prefiling forensic psychological evaluation does not mean a person is subject to civil commitment as a sexually violent predator under chapter 71.09 RCW. In re the Personal Restraint of Parejo, COA No. 76256-7-I (Oct. 8, 2018).

Division Two

Sexually Violent Predators. The trial court’s instructions on “adequately protect the community” which stated that “to establish that the respondent’s less restrictive alternative placement should not be granted, the State must prove one of the following beyond a reasonable doubt:. . .(2) That the proposed less restrictive alternative placement plan does not include conditions that will adequately protect the community” and that the community protection factor did not require “that all risk be removed,” were sufficient. In re Detention of Urlacher, COA No. 49781-6-II (July 3, 2018, publication ordered Oct. 9, 2018).

Ninth Circuit

Tribal Forfeiture of Non-Member’s Vehicle. Tribal jurisdiction is colorable, requiring the exhaustion of tribal remedies, where the non-member, immediately after leaving the casino was found with several containers of marijuana in his truck. Although the vehicle was stopped on a Washington state road, one can logically conclude that the forfeiture was a response to his unlawful possession of marijuana while on tribal land. Wilson v. Horton’s Towing, No. 16-35320 (9th Cir. Oct. 9, 2018). [Editor’s Note: Footnote 6 of the opinion questions tribal authority to issue a non-criminal/civil traffic infraction to nonmembers or events occurring on state roads located within reservation lands.]


Washington Supreme Court

“Notice of Protest” Provisions. A contractor’s suit against the city for breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing was barred by the contractor’s failure to file a written notice protecting the written orders on which the claim of breach was based. Mike M. Johnson, which held that such written notice is mandatory and that actual notice does not apply, applies to claims for expectancy and consequential damages. Nova Contracting, Inc. v. City of Olympia, No. 94711-2 (Sep. 27, 2018).

Dependencies. The Washington constitution does not require that all children be appointed counsel at all stages of the dependency proceedings. Confidential juvenile court records remain sealed and confidential on appeal. In re the Dependency of E.H., No. 94798-8 (Oct. 4, 2018). Lead opinion signed by Justices Owens, Fairhurst, Wiggins and Johnson. Justices Stephens and Gordon McCloud dissented as to the decision to seal the record. Justices Yu and González dissented on the counsel issue.

On October 2, 2018, the Court accepted review of the following cases:

DOSA. State v. Yancey, No. 95992-7. Government’s Petition, Franklin County, Teresa Chen. Questions presented: Who is eligible for a DOSA? May a sentencing enhancement be ignored in order to render someone eligible for a DOSA? COA opinion reported at 3 Wn. App. 2d 735 (2018). Appellate court pleadings available here.

Remedy for Illegal Search. State v. McKee, No. 96035-6. Government’s Petition, Skagit County, Erik Pedersen. Question presented: Whether dismissal of charges based upon an illegal search warrant is impermissible when there has been no finding that insufficient admissible evidence remains following suppression. COA opinion reported at 3 Wn. App. 2d 11 (2018). Appellate court pleadings available here.

Miller. State v. Gilbert, No. 95814-9. Klickitat County– David Quesnel. Questions presented: Whether imposition of consecutive sentences for multiple murder counts violate Miller and its progeny. Whether RCW 9.94A.730(1), which allows for early release of defendants who were sentenced for crimes committed prior to their eighteenth birthday violates a defendant’s due process and Eighth Amendment rights. Whether a sentencing court may consider RCW 9.94A.730(1) when imposing sentence. COA opinion is unpublished. Appellate court pleadings available here.

Division One

Sexually Violent Predator. In an unconditional release trial, a detainee’s antisocial personality disorder and alcohol abuse disorder are relevant risk factors that a jury may consider in determining whether it is likely the detainee will commit predatory acts of sexual violence unless confined to a secure facility. In re Detention of Harell, COA No. 76137-4-I (Aug. 6, 2018, publication ordered Sep. 18, 2018).

Division Two

Bail. While the trial court did not abuse its discretion by concluding that there was a substantial danger that the defendant would commit a violent crime if released on his own recognizance, the court erred by requiring $1,000 bail without making any findings that less restrictive conditions would assure the safety of the community. CrR 3.2(d)(6) requires the court to make oral or written findings that the imposition of other conditions, without bail, would be insufficient to reasonably assure the safety of the community. State v. Huckins, COA No. 50091-4-II (Sep. 25, 2018). [Editor’s Note: Because the court reversed based upon the court rule, it did not reach the defendant’s claim that it violates the constitution for a court to order bail he could not afford. The Washington Supreme Court rejected an article I, section 14 challenge to bail on this ground in 1910. See Ex Parte Rainey, 59 Wash. 529, 110 P. 7 (1910) (bail of $5000 imposed upon a laboring man accused of a common felony is not so unreasonable or excessive in amount as to require reduction). The $5000 bail set in Rainey, adjusted for inflation, would be more than $123,000. See Inflation Calculator available at ]

Jury Misconduct. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for new trial based upon a juror’s mid-deliberation research on the definition of “premeditation,” where the juror did not share the fruits of her research with the other members of the jury and the definitions the juror located where consistent with the law and the court’s own instruction. State v. Arndt, COA No. 50118-0-II (Sep. 25, 2018). Judge Maxa dissented.

Competency to Stand Trial. A trial court may not proceed with a trial when it becomes apparent that the defendant’s mental state has deteriorated to the point where the defendant is no longer competent. If a question arises regarding a defendant’s continued competency, the trial court must suspend the trial and order a competency evaluation. State v. Fedoruk, COA No. 49975-4-II (Jun. 26, 2018, publication ordered Sep. 25, 2018).

Division Three

Jurisdiction Over DUIs. A city’s adoption of RCW 46.61.502 does not deprive the county district court of jurisdiction over DUIs committed within the city. State v. Taylor, COA No. 35461-0-III (Oct. 2, 2018).

Capacity. RCW 9A.04.050, the capacity statute, does not deprive a court of jurisdictional authority to act. A 2017 CrR 7.8 motion to vacate a 1996 conviction for child molestation on the grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction because it did not first determine that the defendant had the capacity to commit the crime when he was 10-years-old was properly denied. State v. Kassner, COA No. 35628-1-III (Oct. 2, 2018).

Manifest Injustice Disposition. The trial court properly imposed a manifest injustice disposition of 27-36 weeks for theft in the third degree solely for the reason that it would benefit the juvenile to receive the services she needed. It was not error for the judge to consider the juvenile’s behavior during the dependency. State v. F.T., COA No. 35524-1-III (Sep. 25, 2018).

Public Records Act. RCW 70.48.100 shields disclosure of phone conversation recording of jail inmates and records relating to the recordings from Public Records Act requests. The exemption extends to jail records that have been forwarded to other government agencies, including the prosecuting attorney’s office. Zabala v. Okanogan County, COA No. 34961-6-III (Oct. 2, 2018) (replacing the April 3, 2018, opinion in this case).

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The September 2018 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.

Ninth Circuit

First Amendment and Bus Advertisements. The county’s bus advertising program is a nonpublic forum. A county may reject factually inaccurate ads because the First Amendment does not require it to display patently false content in a nonpublic forum. The county’s disparagement standard for rejecting ads impermissibly discriminates, on its face, on the basis of viewpoint. The county’s disruption standard is facially valid but was unreasonably applied in this case. American Freedom Defense Initiative v. King County, No. 17-35897 (9th Cir. Sep. 27, 2018).

United States District Court, Western District of Washington

Taxes in Indian Country. Both the State of Washington and Snohomish County may collect retail sales and use tax, business and occupation tax, and personal property tax from non-Indian owned businesses located at Quil Ceda Villate, a municipality located on Tulalip tribal land. The collection of such taxes does not impose on Tulalip’s tribal sovereignty and is not preempted by operation of federal law. Tulalip Tribes v. State of Washington, No. 15-CV-940 BJR (Oct. 4, 2018).

American Bar Association

Ethical Obligations Related to Disasters. “Lawyers must be prepared to deal with disasters. Foremost among a lawyer’s ethical obligations are those to existing clients, particularly in maintaining communication. Lawyers must also protect documents, funds, and other property the lawyer is holding for clients or third parties. By proper advance preparation and taking advantage of available technology during recovery efforts, lawyers will reduce the risk of violating professional obligations after a disaster.” ABA Formal Opinion No. 482 (Sep. 19, 2018). [Editor’s note: The Vermont Bar Association offers a number of resources for disaster planning. I did not find comparable materials on the WSBA website.]


Washington Supreme Court

Legal Financial Obligations. The court’s inquiry into ability to pay must include consideration of the mandatory factors set forth in Blazina, including the defendant’s incarceration and other debts, and the court rule GR 34 criteria for indigency. The trial court should also address what we described in Blazina as other “important factors” relating to the defendant’s financial circumstances, including employment history, income, assets and other financial resources, monthly living expenses, and other debts.

On review, the court applies the abuse of discretion standard to whether discretionary LFOs were validly imposed and conducts a de novo review as to whether the trial court made an adequate inquiry under Blazina.

House Bill 1783 (Laws of 2018, ch. 269), which amended two LFO statutes to prohibit trial courts from imposing discretionary LROs on defendant who are indigent at the time of sentencing, applies to cases on appeal on the effective date of the amendments.

State v. Ramirez, No. 95249-3 (Sep. 20, 2018).

Felony Violation of Protection Order. While assault is an essential element to RCW 26.50.110(4), a defense of property jury instruction is not available when there is a valid court order prohibiting the defendant from contacting the protected party. State v. Yelovich, No. 95192-6 (Sep. 20, 2018). Justices Wiggins, Gordon McCloud and Owens concurred in the result on the grounds that RCW 9A.16.020(3) does not justify the use of force to recover stolen property.

Division One

Assault in the Second Degree. Assault in the second degree is an alternative means crime. A jury is not required to unanimously agree as to which alternative means has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, so long as sufficient evidence supports each of the charged alternative means to commit assault in the second degree. State v. Garcia Gomez, COA No. 75673-7-I (Sep. 17, 2018).

Division Two

Erotic Dance Studios. A local ordinance which allows the County to suspend or revoke the licenses issued to erotic dance studio operators, managers, and dancers if they violate or permit the violation of erotic dance studio regulations is not unconstitutional under article I, section 5 of the Washington Constitution because it does not allow the imposition of sanctions based on strict liability. The ordinance is not unconstitutional under a First Amendment analysis for time, place or manner restrictions. The ordinance does not violate due process because it does not allow the imposition of sanctions based on strict liability. Forbes v. Pierce County, COA No. 51548-2-II (Sep. 18, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Dismissal of an Impaneled Juror. Dismissal of an impaneled juror for bias requires the same findings as dismissal of a potential juror for bias– proof that the juror has formed a biased opinion and, as a result, cannot try the case impartially. When an impaneled juror is erroneously excused midtrial, the defendant will be entitled to a new trial if there is any possibility that the erroneous dismissal stemmed from the juror’s views on the merits of the case. In this case, the trial judge erroneously dismissed an impaneled juror after multiple days of trial testimony because she had a minor connection to an important defense witness that did not give rise to any evidence that the juror was biased . Because there is a reasonable possibility that juror 12 was dismissed beacuse of her views of the merits of the case, the defendant is entitled to a new trial. State v. Van Elsloo, No. 94325-7 (Sep. 13, 2018). Lead opinion authored by Justice Wiggins and signed by no other justices. Justice Gordon McCloud authored a concurring opinion to address “the assumption that one tribal member is incapable of fairly evaluating the testimony of a witness associated with the same tribe.” Justices González, Yu, and Fairhurst signed the concurring opinion. Justice Stephens authored a dissenting opinion in which she argues that a new trial is not warranted. Justices Johnson, Owens and Madsen joined the dissent.

Firearm Enhancement. Sufficient evidence supported a firearm enhancement as there was a nexus between the defendant, the weapon and the crime. The defendant’s argument that the shotgun was too far away from him to qualify as easily accessible and readily available because he would have had to exit the car or move to the back seat to reach the shotgun is rejected. State v. Van Elsloo, No. 94325-7 (Sep. 13, 2018). The Court’s decision on this point was unanimous.

Community Custody and Sex Offenses. The sentencing condition prohibiting the defendant, who was convicted of first degree child molestation, first degree child rape, second degree child molestation, and second degree child rape, from possessing or viewing “sexually explicit material” was crime related and not unconstitutionally vague. The exact language of the community custody condition was

Do not possess, use, access or view any sexually explicit material as defined by RCW 9.68.130 or erotic materials as defined by RCW 9.68.050 or any material depicting any person engaged in sexually explicit conduct as defined by RCW 9.68A.011(4) unless given prior approval by your sexual deviancy provider.

The sentencing conditions requiring the defendant, who was convicted of three counts of second degree child molestation, to disclose to her community corrections officer any “dating relationship” is not unconstitutionally vague. The condition prohibiting this case defendant from entering any “sex-related business” is crime related. State v. Nguyen, No. 94883-6 (Sep. 13, 2018). 

Relocating Cremains. A cemetery violated RCW 68.50.140(4), a class C felony, by relocating cremains without giving prior notification of its actions to next of kin. A “place of interment” for RCW 68.50.140(4) means the particular place remains are buried, such as a plot, and not a cemetary in general. Southwick, Inc. v. State, No. 95237-0 (Sep. 13, 2018). Dissenters were Justices Gordon McCloud, Fairhurst and González.

Wrongful Discharge. The four-part Perritt analysis does not apply to a wrongful discharge suit based upon whistle-blowing. The four-part Perritt analysis does provide helpful guidance in resolving a claim of wrongful discharge based upon whistle blowing.

In a wrongful discharge suit based on whistle-blowing, the plaintiff must show that (1) his discharge may have been motivated by reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy and (2) the public-policy-linked conduct was a significant factor in the decision to discharge him. The clear mandate of public policy is a question of law that is not met in the instant case as the plaintiff cannot produce a court decision, statute, or regulation that requires wall padding in the basketball courts.

If the plaintiff succeeds in presenting a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate nonpretextual nonretaliatory reason for discharge. An employer is not required to concede the existence of the first three elements of the Perritt test before asserting an overriding justification for the termination. The after-acquired-evidence doctrine does not apply to the overriding justification element of the Perritt test.

If the employer articulates such a reason, the burden shifts back to the plaintiff either to show that the reason is pretextual, or by showing that although the employer’s stated reason is legitimate, the public-policy-linked conduct was nevertheless a substantial factor motivating the employer to discharge the worker. Martin v. Gonzaga University, No. 95269-8 (Sep. 13, 2018).

Personnel Files. An employee’s claim that his employer violated RCW 49.12.250 by failing to provide him with a complete copy of his personnel file is not justiciable. An employee must first pursue an administrative request through the Department of Labor and Industries before turning to the courts. Martin v. Gonzaga University, No. 95269-8 (Sep. 13, 2018).

The Washington Supreme Court has accepted review of the following cases:

Clerk’s Bond. Riddle v. Elofson, No. 95959-5. Yakima County. Issue – Whether the Yakima County Clerk is entitled to a writ of prohibition barring the Yakima County Superior Court judges from requiring her to post a $200,000 supplemental bond pursuant to RCW 36.23.020. This is an original action filed against a state officer.

Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys. In re the Appointment of a Special Deputy Prosecuting Attorney, No. 95945-5. Franklin County. Whether Benton-Franklin County Superior Court judges had authority to appoint a special deputy prosecuting attorney to represent them in their mandamus action seeking to compel the Franklin County clerk to provide paper copies of court records as required by Franklin County Local General Rule 3.

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The August 2018 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.

Ninth Circuit

Cyberstalking. Younger abstention doctrine does not bar a federal court from reaching the merits in an action seeking to enjoin enforcement of Washington’s cyberstalking law and to declare the law to be unconstitutional. Rynearson v. Ferguson, No. 17-35853 (9th Cir. Sep. 6, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Forfeiture. A corporate shareholder who did not file any claim in the forfeiture case is not a claimant and therefore cannot recover attorney fees pursuant to RCW 69.50.505(6). A substantially prevailing claimant’s fee award is not strictly limited to fees incurred in the forfeiture proceeding itself. RCW 69.50.505(6) gives courts discretion to award the claimant attorney fees from a related criminal case if the fees were reasonably incurred for the primary purpose of resisting civil forfeiture. OPNET v. Real Property, No. 95013-0 (Sep. 6, 2018). Justice González dissented on the grounds that “The civil forfeiture statute does not authorize attorney fees incurred in a criminal case to be awarded in a forfeiture proceeding.” Justices Fairhurst and Johnson joined the dissent.

The Washington Supreme Court accepted review of the following cases this week:

Community Caretaking. State v. Boisselle, No. 95858-1. Pierce County. “Petition for review granted as to the issue of community caretaking exception only.” Issues: Whether the warrantless entry into the defendant’s home was justified under the emergency exception to the warrant requirement and whether the community caretaking exception requires the State to prove that the warrantless entry was totally divorced from a criminal investigation. COA opinion is reported at 3 Wn. App. 2d 266 (2018). Petition for review available here.

Harmless Error Standard. State v. Romero-Ochoa, No. 95905-6. Pierce County– State’s Petition. Issue: “Does the decision below conflict with decisions of the United States Supreme court, this court, and the courts of appeals concerning the harmless error standard applied to an evidentiary U-visa ruling, where the decision adds a requirement of eyewitness corroboration to the untainted evidence test, and where but for that requirement the error was shown to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?” COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review is available here.

Work Product Protection. Barriga Figueroa v. Prieto Mariscal, No. 95827-1. “Petition for review granted; review of Diaz’s contingent issues denied” Issues: Whether an application for benefits qualified as work product even though it was not prepared in anticipation of litigation, and it contained no confidential information and was admittedly prepared in the normal course of business. Whether the admission of the application was harmless because the same evidence was admitted from other sources and plaintiff below did in fact present refuting evidence. COA opinion is reported at 3 Wn. App. 2d 139 (2018). Petition for review is available here.

Insurance Law. Keodalah v. Allstate Ins. Co., No. 95867-0. Issue: “Does an employee claims adjuster, despite lacking any legal relationship with an insured, owe an actionable, independent duty of good faith to the insured?” COA opinion is reported at 3 Wn. App. 2d 31 (2018). Petition for review pleadings are available here.

Division One

Terry Stops. An officer may check for outstanding warrants during a valid criminal investigatory stop, as long as the procedure does not unreasonably extend the initial valid stop. The officer did not exceed the scope of a valid Terry stop involving a report of a recent assault in order to investigate whether the woman with the suspect was the protected person. State v. Alexander, COA No. 76506-0-I (Sep. 4, 2018).

Manslaughter. A requested lesser degree jury instruction for manslaughter in the second degree was properly rejected when the evidence did not support a finding that the defendant only negligently caused the death of another. While the defendant was entitled to an instruction on manslaughter in the first degree, where the defendant claimed that he reasonably believed he was in imminent danger and needed to act in self-defense but used more force than necessary. No evidence support a finding that the defendant was unaware of the risk of death when he intentionally shot the victim 8 to 10 times at close range. State v. Fluker, COA No. 75060-7-I (Sep. 4, 2018).

Carry Permit. Evidence that the defendant had a permit to carry a firearm is irrelevant to whether the defendant intentionally murdered the victim. State v. Fluker, COA No. 75060-7-I (Sep. 4, 2018).

Division Two

Permit Applications. The City was not liable for damages under RCW 64.40.020(1) in a case in which the LUPA appeal resulted in a determination that the right-of-way dedication failed to satisfy the Nollan/Dolan nexus and proportionality requirements. The City’s decision to impose a right-of-way dedication was not arbitrary and capricious, ultra vires, or unlawful, as the City conducted a Nollan/Dolan analysis prior to imposing the condition, which was authorized by the City code. The LUPA decision alone, does not establish liability for monetary damages or compensation. Church of the Divine Earth v. City of Tacoma, COA No. 49854-5-II (Sep. 5, 2018).

Equitable Estoppel and Permitting. As a matter of law, equitable estoppel may not be alleged offensively as a cause of action by plaintiffs. In a county permitting case, equitable estoppel is a defense rather than a cause of action. Byrd v. Pierce County, COA No. 50513-4-II (Sep. 5, 2018).

Quiet Title and Permitting. Relief available in a quiet title action does not include an injunction prohibiting the County from enforcing an access restriction covenant on title. To the extent an action to quiet title depends upon equitable estoppel, the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Byrd v. Pierce County, COA No. 50513-4-II (Sep. 5, 2018).

Division Three

Washington Attorney General

Voter Registration. A city, county, or school district lacks the authority to allow individuals who have reached the age of 17, but not yet reached the age of 18, to vote in elections for that jurisdiction. The legislature may not allow by statute individuals who have reached the age of 17, but not yet reached the age of 18, to vote in local elections nor allow a city, county, or school district to do so by local option. AGO 2018 No. 6 (Sep. 5, 2018).

Ninth Circuit

Confrontation Clause. The Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause protections established in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), concerning the introduction of statements by non-testifying codefendants, do not apply to statements that are nontestimonial. A tiny handwritten gang memo that detailed the attack was non-testimonial, as it was designed not to fall into the hands of government officials. Lucero v. Holland, No. 15-16111 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2018).

Judicial Notice. A defendant’s request that the court take judicial notice of “unproductive” stops made at the border patrol station, which the defendant contended showed that the agents were not properly applying the reasonable suspicion standard, was proerly rejected on the grounds that it is neither “generally known within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction” nor “can [it] be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned” as required under Federal Rule of Evidence 201(b). United States v. Raygoza-Garcia, No. 16-50490 (9th Cir. Aug. 31, 2018).

Eighth Amendment and the Homeless. The Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment precluded the enforcement of a statute prohibiting sleeping outside against homeless individuals with no access to alternative shelter. As long as there is no option of sleeping indoors, the government cannot criminalize indigent, homeless people for sleeping outdoors, on public property, on the false premise they had a choice in the matter. Martin v. City of Boise, No. 15-35845 (9th Cir. Sep. 4, 2018).

Actual Bias. It was error to seat a juror, whose social security number had previously been stolen, in an aggravated identity theft and possession of unauthorized access devices case, where the victim was unable to explicitly state that she could put her personal biases aside. United States v. Kecheczian, No. 16-50326 (9th Cir. Sep. 4, 2018).

Indiana Supreme Court

RPC 3.8. Deputy prosecuting attorney suspended from the practice of law for 18 months for violating RPC 3.8(a), 3.8(d), and 8.4(d), by failing to notify the defense prior to trial that a child victim recanted the facts underlying one count and by proceeding to trial on that count, despite believing the child victim’s recantation to be truthful. In re the Hudson, No. 64S00-1705-DI-325 (Aug. 29, 2018).

Texas Center for Legal Ethics

On Line Discussion Groups. A lawyer may reveal a limited amount of unprivileged confidential information to lawyers outside the inquiring lawyer’s law firm, without the client’s express consent, when the inquiring lawyer reasonably believes that the revelation will further the representation by obtaining the responding lawyers’ experience or expertise for the benefit of the client, and when it is not reasonably foreseeable that revelation will prejudice the client. A responding lawyer does not enter into an attorney-client relationship with the inquiring lawyer’s client merely by virtue of an informal consultation. Responding lawyers should take reasonable steps to insure that consultation with an inquiring lawyer on a given subject will not adversely affect a present or former client in the subject of the present or former representation. Professional Ethics Committee for the State Bar of Texas Opinion No. 673 (Aug. 2018).

New York City Bar Association Committee on Professional Ethics

Joint Clients. When a joint representation does not involve a conflict of interest between the joint clients that would require the lawyer to obtain the clients’ “informed consent” to the joint representation, the lawyer must nevertheless explain the implications of the joint representation to the extent “reasonably necessary to permit the client[s] to make informed decisions regarding the representation.” This may require the lawyer to explain, for example, that information disclosed to the lawyer by one joint client cannot be withheld from the other joint client(s) if it is material to the representation, and that in the event of a dispute between the joint clients, information that would otherwise be protected by the attorney-client privilege as against third parties will not be protected as between the joint clients. The lawyer should ordinarily provide all such required explanations before commencing the joint representation. Formal Opinion 2017-7: Disclosures to Joint Clients When the Representation Does Not Involve a Conflict of Interest.


Washington Supreme Court

Use of Deadly Force Initiative. I-940 must appear on the November ballot. ESHB 3003, which purported to conditionally and prospectively amend I-940 before I-940 was enacted violates article II, section 1(a) of the state constitution, which prohibits the legislature from amending an initiative during the same session in which it was enacted. Eyman v. Wyman, No. 95749-5 (Aug. 28, 2018) (plurality opinion with lengthy discussions on the separation of powers doctrine).

Division One

Felony Murder Predicated Upon Robbery. There was sufficient evidence to support a reasonable inference that the defendant killed the victim with the intent to take her property where the defendant (1) used a phone application to make calls via the Internet rather than a regular cellular service, (2) created the account he used to communicate with the victim on the day of the murder, (3) contacted numerous medium-priced prostitutes who often carry large sums of money and who are less likely to report a robbery, (4) was in financial despair and looking to “make fast money,” (5) used force to take the property, (6) was seen on video leaving the victim’s ransacked apartment with a full bag, and (7) tried to sell a designer bag which was taken from the victim’s apartment the day after the murder. State v. Wang, COA No. 76369-5-I (Aug. 27, 2018).

WPIC 37.50. The final optional sentence of WPIC 37.50, which states that “The taking constitutes robbery, even if death precedes the taking, whenever the taking and a homicide are part of the same transaction,” is potentially misleading and is not supported by State v. Craig, 82 Wn.2d 777 (1973). The inclusion of this language will not, however, require reversal in all cases. State v. Wang, COA No. 76369-5-I (Aug. 27, 2018).

Washington Privacy Act. A defendant’s calls and text messages to the phone number listed in a advertisement were not private communications protected by the Washington Privacy Act. In re Personal Restraint of Hopper, COA No. 76509-4-I (Jul. 2, 2018, publication ordered Aug. 22, 2018).

Division Two

Domestic Violence/Ongoing Pattern of Psychological Abuse Aggravator. RCW 9.94A.535(3)(h)(i), which allows for an exceptional sentence based upon a finding that the defendant committed a domestic violence offense that was part of an ongoing pattern of psychological abuse of a victim manifested by multiple incidents over a prolonged period of time, is not unconstitutionally overbroad. This sentencing aggravator is not subject to a vagueness challenge. The trial court did not err in finding that the ongoing pattern or psychological abuse occurred over a prolonged period of time based on the defendant’s abuse of the victim over nearly seven weeks. The exceptional sentence of 1,060 months for first degree murder conviction was not clearly excessive. State v. Brush, COA No. 49760-3-II (Aug. 28, 2018).
Division Three

Felony DUI. Whether a prior conviction for vehicular assault will support a felony DUI conviction is a question of law to be decided by the court, upon a review of the court records relating to the prior conviction and assessing which of the alternative means to vehicular assault formed the basis of the conviction. The relevant documents are the charging document, a guilty plea statement, jury verdicts and judgment of conviction. Where a defendant is charged with all three alternative means of committing vehicular assault, his guilty plea includes the means necessary for a later felony DUI conviction. State v. Allen, COA No. 35214-5-III (Aug. 28, 2018).

Eyewitness Identification. A defendant’s failure to argue at trial that a witnesses’ identification testimony is unreliable limits appellate review to whether the introduction of the witnesses’ identification testimony amounted to a manifest constitutional error. RAP 2.5(a)(3). Factual questions regarding what policies governed the pretrial identification procedures, what steps may have been taken to protect against suggestiveness or misidentification, why a double-blind procedure was not used, and other issues prevents the defendant from establishing manifest constitutional error. In the absence of a viable constitutional challenge to unreliable eyewitness testimony, a criminal defendant may assert an objection under ER 602. Such a challenge, however, must first be asserted in the trial court. State v. Ramirez, COA No. 34872-5-III (Aug. 30, 2018).

FBI Historical Cell Site Analysis. Cell site location testimony is widely accepted throughout the country, thus it is not subject to a Frye hearing. The use of proprietary software to map out cell tower strengths does not cause an FBI agent’s testimony to fall outside of Frye. It is not error under ER 702, to allow an FBI agent with sufficient training and experience to testify regarding historical cell site analysis. State v. Ramirez, COA No. 34872-5-III (Aug. 30, 2018).

Jury Unanimity. A defendant may assert a claim that the charged crime is an alternative means offense and that the jury instructions left open the possibility of an improper nonunanimous jury verdict for the first time on appeal. State v. Barboza-Cortes, COA No. 34356-1-III (Aug. 30, 2018). Judge dissented on this point.

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. Although the firearm statute prohibits owning, possessing or controlling a firearm, these three descriptors are not alternate ways of violating the same statute. They are instead manners of proving the singular criminal act of unlawful possession. State v. Barboza-Cortes, COA No. 34356-1-III (Aug. 30, 2018). Judge Fearing dissented on this point.

Identity Theft. Washington’s identity theft statute prohibits contains two alternative means of committing the crime: (1) illegal activity involving “means of identification;” or (2) illegal activity involving “financial information.” Absent sufficient evidence in support of each alternative means, the jury must make an express unanimous finding as to which alternative means formed the basis of the conviction. State v. Barboza-Cortes, COA No. 34356-1-III (Aug. 30, 2018). Judge Korsmo dissented on this point.

Washington Attorney General

Foreign Protection Orders. Federal law requires that any protection order issued by the court of a state or Indian tribe be accorded full faith and credit and enforced by the court of another state or Indian tribe. Registration of the order in a state court is not a prerequisite to enforcement. AGO 2018 No. 5 (Aug. 28, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Washington Minimum Wage Act. Plaintiffs can recover both prejudgment interest under RCW 19.52.010 and double exemplary damages under RCW 49.52.070 for the same wage violation. Hill v. Garda CL Northwest, Inc., No. 94593-4 (Aug. 23, 2018). Justice Johnson authored a dissent which claims that the employer did not willfully withhold wages. Justices Owens and Fairhurst also signed the dissent.

Division One

GR 33. GR 33, which governs requests for accommodation by persons with disabilities, requires proof of disability as a prerequisite to accommodations at trial. A trial court’s decision as to the presence or absence of a disability will be reviewed under the substantial evidence test. GR 33 does not require that a request for accommodation be handled wholly ex parte. A court properly requires notice to all parties when a request for accommodation includes a motion for a continuance of the trial date. A court’s ruling regarding accommodation should be on the record and reduced to writing. When a request is denied, the trial court must “ensure that the person requesting the accommodation is informed of his or her right to file an ADA complaint with the United States Department of Justice Civil Rights Division.” GR 33(e). A party is entitled to challenge the application of GR 33 in an appeal of the same proceeding in which the GR 33 accommodation were sought. The party is not required to bring his/her GR 33 claim against the county, as the question in the appeal is whether the party was denied a fair trial, not whether the county should be sanctioned for failure to accommodate the party. In re the Marriage of McCann, COA No. 76113-7-I (Aug. 20, 2018).

Division Two

Electronic Service. When parties to an action mutually agree to accept service by e-mail, service through a court maintained system that automatically generates an e-mail which states that “The following documents are being electronically served upon you,” is sufficient. A party need not also serve the document by direct e-mail to opposing counsel. Tacoma Pierce County Small Business Incubator v. Jaguar Security, Inc., COA No. 50439-1-II (Aug. 21, 2018).

Division Three

Child Pornography. The information provided by Microsoft to police in compliance with 18 U.S.C. § 2258A, along with commonsense inferences about where and how long child pornography is likely to be retained, provided probable cause to issue the warrant. Overbreadth issues are properly avoided by the severability doctrine. State v. Friedrich, COA No. 35099-1-III (Aug. 23, 2018).

Defendant’s Post-Conviction Access to Discovery. Defendant’s post-sentencing motion to compel production of his client file and discovery materials is governed by CrR 4.7(h)(3) and RPC 1.6(d). These rules require some sort of disclosure when a criminal defendant requests copies of his or her file, without any showing of need. Disclosure is subject to redactions under CrR 4.7(h)(3). State v. Padgett, COA No. 35034-7-III (Jul. 17, 2018, publication ordered Aug. 23, 2018). [Editor’s Note: This case relates solely to the client record that is in the hands of the defendant’s attorney. There is no requirement that the prosecution reissue discovery to a defendant post-conviction.]

Ninth Circuit

No Contact Orders and Expectation of Privacy. A person who is prohibited from entering a residence by a court’s no-contact order lacks a legitimate expectation of privacy in that residence and may not challenge its search on Fourth Amendment grounds. United States v. Schram, No. 17-30055 (9th Cir. Aug. 21, 2018). [Editor’s note: This opinion is consistent with Washington law. See State v. Jacobs, 101 Wn. App. 80, 2 P.3d 974 (2000) (an individual who has been excluded from a particular building by a judicial domestic violence order will lack a reasonable expectation of privacy in the building).].

Indecent Exposure and Immigration Consequences. Convictions for indecent exposure pursuant to RCW 9A.88.010(1) or RCW 9A.88.010(2)(b) are not categorically crimes involving moral turpitude for immigration purposes. Both statutes are indivisible such that the modified categorical approach is inapplicable. Barrera-Lima v. Sessions, No. 13-73022 (9th Cir. Aug. 24, 2018).


Washington Supreme Court

Waiver of Counsel. Defendant’s request to represent himself, which was made out of a desire to avoid a trial delay, was unequivocal. An unequivocal request to proceed pro se requires a defendant to make an explicit choice between exercising the right to counsel and the right to self-representation so that a court may be reasonably certain that the defendant wishes to represent himself. The motivation or purpose behind the request for self-representation is not a factor in determining whether the request was unequivocal. State v. Curry, No. 94681-7 (Aug. 16, 2018). Justice Gordon McCloud authored a concurring opinion.

Auto-Adult. RCW 13.04.030(1), which automatically subjects some individuals who commit crimes prior to their eighteenth birthday to adult court jurisdiction, does not violate the individuals’ substantive or procedural due process rights. There is no constitutional right to be tried in juvenile court. Automatic adult jurisdiction does not implicate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. State v. Watkins, No. 94973-5 (Aug. 16, 2018). Justice Yu authored the dissenting opinion which was also signed by Justices González and Gordon McCloud.

Leading Organized Crime. Only crimes listed in RCW 9A.82.010(4) as predicate offenses may be joined to a count of “leading organized crime,” Washington’s Criminal Profiteering Act (CPA), RCW 9A.82.060(1)(a). The “joinder bar” statute, RCW 9A.82.085, rather than CrR 4.4’s discretionary severance standard applies when leading organized crime is charged. Convictions affirmed as the record, which is devoid of defense counsel’s reasons (or lack of reasons) for choosing to defend against these crimes in one prosecution rather than several, does not establish ineffective assistance of counsel. State v. Linville, No. 94813-5 (Aug. 16, 2018). Justices González, Johnson and Yu concurred in the result only.

Frivolous Lawsuits. Eighteen month suspension of attorney for violating RPC 3.1, RPC 4.4(a), and RPC 8.4(d), by intentionally and knowingly filing frivolous pleadings, including a LUPA, with the intent to harass and annoy his neighbors, affirmed. Baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment Right to Petition. In re Discipline Of: David Cottingham, No. 201,704-5 (Aug. 16, 2018).

Division One

Public Records Act. The PRA provides for a single cause of action arising from an alleged PRA denial, regardless of how many individuals were involved in making the request. An attorney, who makes a Public Records Act (PRA) request on behalf of a client, lacks standing to sue for a PRA violation; the cause of action belongs to the client. Creer Legal v. Monroe School District, COA No. 76814-0-I (Aug. 13, 2018).

Restoration of Firearm Rights. A sealed juvenile class A felony adjudication does not render a person ineligible for restoration of firearm rights. Woodward v. State, COA No. 76932-4-I (Aug. 13, 2018).

Ninth Circuit

Writs of Restitution. Plaintiff’s action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the sheriff, to prevent the sheriff from enforcing RCW 59.18.375, could proceed under the public interest exception to the mootness doctrine. Judicial immunity is not available to the sheriff in an action as the doctrine only bars suits seeking damages, and does not preclude a court from granting declaratory or injunctive relief. Whether RCW 59.18.375, which allows for the issuance of a writ of restitution in non-payment of rent situations without a court hearing is unconstitutional should be resolved on remand. Moore v. Urquhart, No. 16-36086 (9th Cir. Aug. 16, 2018).

Section 1983 and Brady. A detective, who withheld material impeachment evidence under Brady v. Maryland and Giglio v. United States during a 1997-98 investigation, is not protected by qualified immunity in a lawsuit brought by a woman who was wrongly imprison for seventeen years. Mellen v. Winn, No. 17-55116 (9th Cir. Aug. 17, 2018).


Prosecutorial Misconduct. This article demonstrates that, contrary to expectations, prosecutorial misconduct occurs with reassuring infrequency. The article also proffers a few explanations for the persistence of the myth that prosecutorial misconduct is endemic, discusses various problems related to the criminal justice system that are improperly attributed to prosecutors, and evaluates a few well-intentioned but misguided proposals intended to remedy prosecutorial misconduct. Timothy Harker, Faithful Execution: The Persistent Myth of Widespread Prosecutorial Misconduct, Tennessee Law Review, Vol. 85, No. 4, 2018.


Washington Supreme Court

Employer Tort Liability. An action based on negligent training and supervision is applicable only when the employee is acting outside the scope of his employment. But if the employee is acting within the scope of his employment, then an employer is vicariously liable under the principles of agency. A duty of supervision claim requires evidence that the employer knew or should have known of the dangerous tendencies of the particular employee. Anderson v. Soap Lake School District, No. 93977-2 (Aug. 9, 2018). Justice Gordon McCloud authored a partial dissent, which was also signed by Justices Stephens, Yu and González.

Land Use, Monetary Damages, and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies. The Land Use Petition Act’s administrative exhaustion requirement does not bar all tort claims. The evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s finding of a substantive due process violation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 when the plaintiff had a permit to mine and two letters from the County which could be interpreted broadly as an agency determination that the property owner had complied with all of the permit’s premining conditions, and where two of the county’s board commissioners deliberately interfered with the impartiality of the department’s decision-making process. An aggrieved party cannot recover prelitigation, administrate fora attorney fees intentionally caused by the tortfeasor under a tortious interference claim. While RAP 18.1 applies to requests for appellate attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the separate argument requirement is satisfied by a brief (in this case 2 sentences) request in the body of the brief which cites the federal statute. Maytown Sand & Gravel, LLC v. Thurston County, No. 94452-1 (Aug. 9, 2018).

On August 7, 2018, the Washington Supreme Court granted review of the following case:

Legal Financial Obligations. State v. Catling, No. 95794-1. Spokane County. “Granted on the Social Security Act antiattachment issue only.” Issue presented: Whether the imposition of mandatory LFOs on a defendant how receives social security disability payments is valid as long as the court specifies that payments cannot come from the defendant’s social security disability income. The petition for review and an amicus from Disability Rights Washington in support of review are both available on the court’s website. The court of appeal’s opinion is reported at 2 Wn. App. 2d 819 (2018).

Division One

Public Records Act. Records associated with union organizing created by, received by, or in the possession of specifically named employees and specified e-mail addresses are not “public records” under the Public Records Act, because they were not prepared, owned, used or retained within the scope of employment. Service Employees International Union Local 925 v. University of Washington, COA No. 76630-9-1 (Jun. 11, 2018, publication ordered Aug. 8, 2018).

Division Two

Community Custody. A community custody condition that provided: “The defendant shall not loiter in nor frequent places where children congregate such as parks, video arcades, campgrounds, and shopping malls,” is unconstitutionally vague. State v. Wallmuller, COA No. 50250-0-II (Aug. 7, 2018). [Editor’s Note: This opinion creates a conflict with Division Three’s July 17, 2018, opinion in State v. Johnson, COA No. 34928-4-III. Division Three held that a condition that demands the defendant “[a]void places where children congregate to include, but not limited to: parks, libraries, playgrounds, schools, school yards, daycare centers, skating rinks, and video arcades,” is not unconstitutionally vague. The term “children,” however, must be limited to individuals under the age of 16.]

Waiver of Filing Fees and Inmates. RCW 4.24.430, which requires a court to deny an inmate’s request to waive filing fees in any civil action or appeal against the State where the inmate has brought at least three prior actions that were dismissed because they were “frivolous or malicious” and where the action would not affect the duration of confinement is not unconstitutionally vague and does not violate equal protection. Procedural due process requires the court clerk’s letter ruling to identify the prior actions that the clerk relies on in determining that RCW 4.24.430 applies to a particular inmate. In re Personal Restraint of Troupe, COA No. 50657-2-II (Aug. 7, 2018).

Legal Financial Obligations. The trial court’s inquiry into the defendant’s work history and whether there was any reason why the defendant could not work was inadequate to assess whether the defendant had the ability to pay discretionary LFOs. A court must also inquire into debts and assets. State v Glover, COA No. 49944-4-II (Aug. 7, 2018).

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The July 2018 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.


Washington Supreme Court

Time Bar and Petitions for Resentencing Based Youth. State v. O’Dell, 183 Wn.2d 680 (2015), which held that while “age is not a per se mitigating factor,” a sentencing court “must be allowed to consider youth as a mitigating factor when” relevant, does not provide an exception to RCW 10.73.090(1)’s one year time bar on collateral attacks. O’Dell was not a “significant and material change in the law.” RCW 10.73.100(6). In re Personal Restraint of Light-Roth, No. 94950-6 (Aug. 2, 2018). Justice González concurred in the result.

Possession of Stolen Property. Possession of a stolen vehicle is not an “alternative means” or “all means” crime. The inclusion of the definition of “possession” in the “to convict” jury instruction does not require the State to prove that the defendant “knowingly received, retained, possessed, concealed, and disposed of a stolen motor vehicle.” RCW 9A.56.140(1). The State’s failure to place an “or” between “concealed” and “disposed” in the “to convict” instruction does not require reversal where the definitional jury instruction contained the word “or.” State v. Tyler, No. 93770-2 (Aug. 2, 2018). Justice Gordon McCloud authored a concurring opinion which was signed by Justice Fairhurst.

Denial of a Peremptory Challenge. The erroneous denial of a peremptory challenge authorized by the criminal rules is not a structural error. In re Personal Restraint of Meredith, No. 94582-0 (Aug. 2, 2018). . Justice Yu concurred.

Ineffective Assistance of Appellate Counsel. Appellate counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise the denial of a non-constitutional denial or peremptory challenge in the direct review because, under RAP 2.5(a), the appellate court could have refused to hear the claim of error because it was not objected to at trial and it is not a type of structural error that requires automatic reversal. In re Personal Restraint of Meredith, No. 94582-0 (Aug. 2, 2018). Justice Yu concurred.

Time Bar and Double Jeopardy. Double jeopardy claims are exempt from the one-year time bar on collateral challenges. In re Personal Restraint of Schorr, No. 94951-8 (Aug. 2, 2018).

Guilty Pleas and Waivers of Appeals and Collateral Attacks. A defendant cannot waive his right to: (1) assert constitutional violations that arise after the entry of the plea,; (2) effective assistance of counsel in a plea agreement; (3) be sentenced free from constitutionally impermissible factors such as race; and (4) to challenge a sentence in a plea agreement that exceeds the court’s statutory authority. A defendant can waive the right to appeal or assert other challenges to his sentence or conviction. In re Personal Restraint of Schorr, No. 94951-8 (Aug. 2, 2018).

Double Jeopardy and Guilty Pleas. Criminal defendants cannot pick and choose the portions of the charges to which they will plead guilty. Where the defendant was charged with first degree murder by two alternative means: premeditated murder and felony murder predicated on first degree robbery, his first degree robbery conviction does not merge with the first degree premeditated murder conviction. In re Personal Restraint of Schorr, No. 94951-8 (Aug. 2, 2018).

Sexually Violent Predators. The admission of expert testimony on a diagnosis of “paraphilia not otherwise specified (NOS), persistent sexual interest in pubescent aged females, non-exclusive,” was not an abuse of discretion. “Paraphilia NOS” is a generally accepted diagnosis within the psychological community. In re Detention of Black, No. 94494-6 (Aug. 2, 2018). Justices Madsen, Wiggins, Gordon McCloud and Stephens dissented.

Division Two

Life Without the Possibility of Parole. Sentencing a defendant with age-related dementia to mandatory life imprisonment without the possibility of parole under RCW 10.95.030(1) is not categorically barred by article I, section 14’s prohibition against cruel punishment. State v. Moen, COA No. 49474-4-II (Jul. 31, 2018).

Midtrial Motion to Excuse Juror. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the defendant’s midtrial motion to excuse a juror who did not disclose during voir dire that she met with members of the defendant’s family to discuss long-term care, where the juror did not deliberately conceal the fact during voir dire. The juror disclosed the potential conflict soon after hearing testimony regarding the defendant’s attempted suicide and resulting injuries, and she unequivocally stated that she would decide the case fairly, based on the facts and evidence presented. State v. Moen, COA No. 49474-4-II (Jul. 31, 2018).

Division Three

Reempaneling Jury. A discharged jury may be recalled to complete a corrected verdict when the time since discharge is short and external influences have not compromised the jury’s impartiality. State v. Clements, COA No. 35112-2-III (Aug. 2, 2018).

Ninth Circuit

Federal Grants. In the absence of congressional authorization, the Executive Branch may not withhold all federal grants from so-called “sanctuary” cities and counties. City and County of San Francisco v. Trump, No. 17-17478 (9th Cir. Aug. 1, 2018).

State Bar of Nevada Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel. A criminal defense lawyer facing allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel from a former client may disclose confidential information relating to representation of the client to the extent the lawyer reasonable believes necessary to defend against the allegations. Any disclosure must be narrowly tailored to the issues raised by the former client. Formal Opinion No. 55.


Washington Supreme Court

DOSA Revocations. A fact that necessarily results in DOSA revocation must be proved by a preponderance of the evidence. If the underlying infraction is not proved by a preponderance of the evidence, the Department of Corrections (DOC) may not terminate the defendant’s treatment. DOC must determine on a case-by-case basis whether an individual facing DOSA revocation should be appointed counsel. Personal Restraint of Schley, No. 94280-3 (Jul. 26, 2018) (plurality opinion). Lead opinion signed by Justices Owens, Wiggins, Yu and Gordon McCloud. Justice González wrote separately to indicate his concern by the very low burden of proof – “some evidence” – used in prison disciplinary cases. Justices Fairhurst, Madsen, Johnson and Stephens dissented.

Offender Scores. The defendant must allege a constitutional defect on the face of a prior conviction to challenge the conviction’s validity for purposes of offender score calculation in an otherwise unrelated proceeding. The court may not go behind the judgment and sentence and engage in statutory interpretation to determine the facial validity of a prior conviction for current sentencing purposes. State v. Blair, No. 93995-1 (Jul. 26, 2018). Justice Gordon McCloud authored a concurring opinion which was also signed by Justices Stephens and Madsen.

Restoration of Firearm Rights. RCW 9.41.040(4)(a)(ii)(A) doe not require a petitioner to be conviction-free for five consecutive years or more immediately preceding the filing of the petition. Any five-year conviction-free period will satisfy the terms of RCW 9.41.040(4)(a)(ii)(A). State v. Dennis, No. 95083-1 (Jul. 26, 2018). Justices González, Fairhurst and Yu dissented.

Public Works Contract and Employment Discrimination. A gender discrimination claim based upon the county making the performance of the work under an offered contract more difficult than if the contract had been awarded to a member of the opposite sex was improperly dismissed on summary judgment, where the official overseeing the bidding process commented upon the successful bidder’s attire during the scheduled walk-through, called to discourage her from bidding on the project, the male-owned business received an unscheduled private walk-through, only the contractor status of the female-owned company was checked prior to awarding the bid, the county continued to track the contractor status post-award of bid, and altered the contract to require a bond. Specialty Asphalt & Construction, LLC. v. County of Lincoln, No. 95085-7 (Jul. 26, 2018). Justices Gordon McCloud and Johnson dissented on this point.

Public Works Contract and Negligent Misrepresentation. Summary judgment was improperly granted on the negligent misrepresentation claim as the plaintiff had incurred expenses prior to performance basedupon the bid’s statement that no bond would be required. The public duty doctrine will not bar a company’s negligent misrepresentation claim against the county as once the contract was awarded there was a “special relationship” between the county and the plaintiff. Specialty Asphalt & Construction, LLC. v. County of Lincoln, No. 95085-7 (Jul. 26, 2018).

Public Works Contract and Breach of Contract. A company that was awarded a public works contract was not entitled to pursue monetary damages for its breach of contract claim. The only remedy available to the company, which did not perform under the contract, is injunctive relief. Specialty Asphalt & Construction, LLC. v. County of Lincoln, No. 95085-7 (Jul. 26, 2018).

Division Two

Waiver of Appeal. A written plea agreement provision that waived the defendant’s right to ““any and all other appellate rights [other than the right to appeal any sentence outside of his standard sentencing range] as part of this plea agreement in accordance with State v. Lee,” does not waive the defendant’s right to challenge the validity of his guilty plea. The waiver of appeal does, however, prevent the defendant from challenging the offender score calculation. State v. Harris, COA No. 49641-1-II (Jul. 24, 2018).

Voluntariness of Guilty Pleas. A defendant’s guilty plea to crimes he did not commit in order to take advantage of a plea offer pursuant to In re Barr, was valid where the record demonstrates that the defendant knew the “greater charge” he was seeking to avoid was premeditated first degree murder and the probable cause declaration detailed the evidence available to the State on the original charge. State v. Harris, COA No. 49641-1-II (Jul. 24, 2018).

DOSA Revocations. The Department of Corrections (DOC) must advise inmates serving DOSA sentences that they may request to be represented by counsel at a UA violation hearing and that their request will be considered on a case-by-case basis. DOC’s revocation of a DOSA under RCW 9.94A.662(3) does not violate separation of powers. Personal Restraint of Bufalini, COA No. 50785-4-II (May 10, 2018, publication ordered Jul. 24, 2018).

Kidnapping. Kidnapping is a continuing course of conduct that includes the act of abduction itself and the continued restraint of a victim’s liberty. Double jeopardy was not violated by convictions for first degree kidnapping and attempted first degree kidnapping where the victim regained her liberty by escaping the defendant’s initial restraint. Though the defendant immediately pursued the victim, she was no longer restrained when the defendant attempted to kidnap her again. State v. Classen, COA No. 49762-0-II (Jul. 24, 2018).

Vehicular Homicide and Vehicular Assault. When a defendant claims that a superseding cause negates proximate cause, the jury must be instructed that the State has the burden to prove the absence of a superseding cause. The absence of a superseding cause, however, is not an element that must be added to the “to convict” instruction. State v. Imokawa, COA No. 49995-9-II (Jul. 24, 2018).

Voluntary Intoxication. The defendant’s failure to provide competent evidence as to whether methamphetamine or heroin can affect his ability to form the requisite intent was fatal to a request for a voluntary intoxication instruction. Defense counsel was not ineffective in failing to assert a voluntary intoxication defense as a history and diagnosis of amphetamine use disorder will not support the defense absent expert testimony or some other evidence establishing that methamphetamine use affected the defendant’s ability to form the requisite intent. State v. Imokawa, COA No. 49995-9-II (Jul. 24, 2018).

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Inferior Degree Offenses. Defense counsel provided constitutionally deficient representation by not requesting an inferior degree offense where his closing argument demonstrated that the failure to request such an instruction was not a legitimate trial strategy. Counsel’s closing argument contained this statement: “[Classen] is guilty of assault. There is no question about that. What kind of assault is it? That’s the question.” State v. Imokawa, COA No. 49995-9-II (Jul. 24, 2018).

Local Initiatives. A superior court has the authority to conduct a pre-election review of a proposed initiative to determine whether the initiative is beyond the scope of the local initiative power and whether any of the provisions conflict with state law. An injunction preventing the initiative from appearing on the ballot does not violate the proponent’s right to free speech. Port of Tacoma v. Save Tacoma Water, COA No. 49263-6-II (Jul. 25, 2018).

Division Three

Public Records Act. Agency culpability is only one of a series of factors to be taken into account in assessing a PRA penalty. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in assessing a relatively low daily fine where the problems leading up to the PRA violation were attributable solely to one employee and, given that employee’s retirement, a large penalty would not be necessary to deter future PRA violations. Hoffman v. Kittitas County, COA No. 35091-6-III (Jul. 24, 2018). Judge Lawrence-Berrey concurred in a separate opinion.

Ninth Circuit

Judicial Bias. Capital defendant’s right to due process was violated where the judge who presided over the trial never informed the defendant that the FBI agent/murder victim had investigated the judge for possible criminal prosecution. This unrevealed connection created a constitutionally intolerable risk of judicial bias. Echavarria v. Filson, No. 15-99001 (9th Cir. Jul. 25, 2018).

Witness Exclusion Orders. Fed. R. Evid. 615 prohibits a sequestered witness from not only attending a hearing or trial, but reading transcripts from it. An appropriate sanction for violating a Rule 615 sequester order is to allow the defense to cross-examine the witness about his/her exposure to the transcripts. United States v. Robertson, No. 16-10385 (9th Cir. Jul. 20, 2018).

Tennessee Supreme Court Board of Professional Responsibility

Prosecutors and RPC 1.8 and 8.4(d). Prosecuting attorney censured for entering into an agreement to publish a book about the convictions of three people for murder, after he was successful in getting murder convictions as the lead prosecutor in the matter. The publication of the book prior to the conclusions of the appeals of two of the convictions violated RPC 1.8 (conflict of interest) and RPC 8.4(d) (prejudice to the administration of justice). In re Brooks, No. 44880-1-ES (July 13, 2018). Additional facts available here.


Division Three

Conditions of Community Custody. Conditions restricting the defendant’s access to nude images and images of children wearing only undergarments and/or swimsuits are invalid as overbroad and not crime related. Conditions prohibiting the possession or viewing of material that shows women, men, and/or children engaging in sexual acts with each other, themselves, with an object, or animal, and attendance at X-rated movies, peep shows, or adult book stores are overly broad and not sufficiently crime related. To the extent Alocer and Magana condoned such conditions, these decisions are “no longer good law after Padilla.” A condition that demands the defendant “[a]void places where children congregate to include, but not limited to: parks, libraries, playgrounds, schools, school yards, daycare centers, skating rinks, and video arcades,” is not unconstitutionally vague. The term “children,” however, must be limited to individuals under the age of 16. State v. Johnson, COA No. 34928-4-III (July 17, 2018). Judge Fearing dissented on the grounds that the “avoid places” condition should be reformed further.

“Old Chief” Stipulations and Post-Conviction No Contact Orders. Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 191-92 (1997), which holds that where the existence of a prior conviction is an element of an offense, the trial court must accept the accused’s offer to stipulate to the prior conviction, also applies to an accused’s offer to stipulate to a post-conviction no-contact order. State v. Taylor, COA No. 35172-6-III (Jul. 17, 2018). [Editor’s Note: Defense counsel may not stipulate to the existence of a prior predicate conviction or the existence of a post-conviction no-contact order over the defendant’s objection. State v. Humphries, 181 Wn.2d 708 (2014). Best practice is to obtain defendant’s agreement to the stipulation on the record in open court.]

Guilty Pleas. A defendant may assert that the trial court violated his due process rights by accepting a guilty plea for the first time on appeal when the challenge is based upon the defendant’s denial of an element of the charged crime at the plea hearing. When a defendant’s oral statement at a plea hearing conflicts with the defendant’s written statement, the court must inquire further and may only accept the guilty plea upon determining that the defendant actually understands the elements of the crime and is admitting to the prohibited conduct. State v. Taylor, COA No. 35172-6-III (Jul. 17, 2018).

Exclusion of Defense Evidence. Whether a trial court’s exclusion of defense evidence violated the accused’s constitutional right to present a defense will be reviewed de novo. Where the excluded defense evidence has minimal or no relevance the trial court’s ruling will be affirmed. The trial court did not err in excluding evidence that the woman the defendant killed had four years earlier dated a man accused of murder and that she had hid the murder weapon. State v. Burnam, COA No. 34946-2-III (Jul. 17, 2018).

Fourth Circuit

Prosecutorial Immunity. A prosecuting attorney does not create a hostile work environment by reading aloud, at a trial preparation meeting, potential evidence in the form of letters containing racial epithets. A prosecuting attorney, moreover, acts as an advocate during a trial-preparation meeting, thus triggering absolute prosecutorial immunity. Absolute prosecutorial immunity protects a prosecuting attorney in a suit brought by a police officer who claims that the prosecutor retaliated against him by refusing to call the officer as a witness in criminal cases and by notifying the officer’s employers of that decision. Savage v. Sewell, No. 17-1636 (4th Cir. Jul. 13, 2018).

Sixth Circuit

Facebook. Photographs from a Facebook account were properly authenticated by evidence that the photos in question came from a Facebook account registered to the defendant and the photos appeared to show the defendant in his own apartment. Defendant’s argument that the photos could have been manipulated goes to the weight of the evidence, not to authentication pursuant to Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The Facebook photographs were self-authenticating as a business record. United States v. Farrad, Nos. 16-5102/6730 (6th Cir. Jul. 17, 2018). [Editor’s Note: This opinion contains a comprehensive analysis regarding the admissibility of Facebook records. Washington’s evidence rules are either identical to, or extremely similar, to the federal rules discussed in the opinion.]

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Drug-Free Conditions of Sentences. It is permissible to impose a “drug free” condition of probation upon an individual who is addicted to drugs. A person who is addicted to drugs may be subject to probation violation proceedings for subsequently testing positive for illegal drugs. Requiring an individual who has been diagnosed with “substance use disorder” (SUD) to remain drug free does not violate the Eighth Amendment as any sanction is not a punishment for drug use but for the underlying crime. While “addition is a status that cannot be criminalized, . . . judges cannot ignore the fact that relapse is dangerous for the person who may be in the throes of addiction and, often times, for the community in which that person lives.” Massachusetts v. Eldred, No. SJC–12279 (Mass. July 16, 2018). [Editor’s Note: RCW 69.51A.055 allows a drug free condition of sentence to include medical marijuana when the use of marijuana is “inconsistent with and contrary to his or her supervision.”]


Washington Supreme Court

Petitions for Review. The Supreme Court accepted review this week of the following cases:

Attenuation Doctrine. State v. Mayfield, No. 95632-4. Cowlitz County. Issues presented: Whether a Gunwall analysis is required with every new article I, section 7 challenge? Whether the federal attenuation doctrine is compatible with articl I, section 7? Whether a voluntary consent to search, obtained with Ferrier warnings, attenuates a search from an illegal seizure? COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review available here.

Exceptional Sentences. State v. Brown, No. 95734-7. Snohomish County. Issues presented: Whether a trial court may impose an exceptional sentence on remand following an appeal when the court expressly declined to impose an exceptional sentence on the same basis at the original sentencing. Whether a presumption of vindictive COA opinion is unpublished. Petition for review available here.

Division Two

Attempted Manslaughter. Attempted manslaughter is a nonexistent crime. Although the defendant’s conviction for attempted manslaughter was the result of a plea agreement, the judgment and sentence is facially invalid. A conviction for a nonexistent crime is a fundamental constitutional error that causes actual prejudice. In re Personal Restraint of Knight, COA No. 49521-0-II (Jul. 10, 2018).

Ethics Advisory Committee

Pre-trial Dynamic Risk Assessments. The Code of Judicial Conduct prohibits court staff, who are under the judge’s direction and control, from conducting off-the-record interviews of unrepresented defendants with pending matters for the purpose of gathering information for use in a pre-trial risk assessment. Ethics Opinion 18-04.

Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement

The June 2018 edition of the Legal Update for Washington State Law Enforcement, which is authored by John Wasberg and which is hosted on the Washington Association of Sheriffs and Police Chief’s web site is now available.


Washington Supreme Court

Unlawful Possession of a Firearm. Whether a defendant received statutory notice that he was prohibited from possessing a firearm may properly be resolved pretrial. A sentencing court’s failure to notify a defendant at the time of sentencing that he is prohibited from possessing a firearm does not require the dismissal of a charge of unlawful possession of a firearm, if the defendant “otherwise acquired actual knowledge” of his ineligibility to possess firearms. Formal written notices of ineligibility to possess firearms given to the defendant upon his conviction of subsequent felonies by a judge, probation officer, member of the court staff, or defense counsel will satisfy the “otherwise acquired actual knowledge” requirement. State v. Garcia, No. 94457-1 (Jul. 5, 2018). Chief Justice Fairhurst authored the dissenting opinion, which was also signed by Justices Johnson and Gordon McCloud.

Division Two

Failure to Transfer Title. Failure to transfer a vehicle’s title within 15 days of a change of ownership, RCW 46.12.050(5)(a), is a traffic infraction. RCW 46.63.020 makes a failure to perform any act required by Title 46 RCW a traffic infraction, except when a provision is expressly classified as a criminal offense. State v. Hendricks, COA No. 49823-5-II (Apr. 24, 2018, publication ordered Jul. 3, 2018).

Pretext Traffic Stop. The traffic stop for failure to transfer title was not pretextual as the stop was initiated based upon running license plates as vehicles passed him and the deputy did not recognize the vehicle’s occupants until after initiating the traffic stop. State v. Hendricks, COA No. 49823-5-II (Apr. 24, 2018, publication ordered Jul. 3, 2018).

Personal Restraint Petitions and Trial Courts. The filing of a personal restraint petition (PRP) does not invest the superior court of its authority to act in a case. A PRP is an original action in the appellate court which does not trigger RAP 7.2. State v. Contreras-Rebollar, COA No. 48923-6-II (Jul. 3, 2018).

Community Custody. Application of RCW 9.94A.701 to impose a fixed 36-month community custody term upon a person who committed the crime prior to the effective date of RCW 9.94A.701 violates the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws. State v. Contreras-Rebollar, COA No. 48923-6-II (Jul. 3, 2018).

WEEKLY ROUNDUP FOR JUNE 22, 2019 & JUNE 29, 2018

United States Supreme Court

Double Jeopardy. Defendant’s agreement to statutory severance of a felon-in-possession count from substantive burglary counts waived his right to invoke the issue-preclusion protection of the double jeopardy clause after he was acquitted of the substantive offenses. Currier v. Virginia, No. 16-1348 (Jun. 22, 2018).

Historical Cell Site Location Data. Police will generally need to get a search warrant to obtain cell-site location information, a record of the cell towers (or other sites) with which a cellphone connected. Carpenter v. United States, No. 16-402 (Jun. 22, 2018).

Union Agency Fees. Overrules Abood v. Detroint Board of Education and holds that state government workers who do not wish to join the union representing them cannot be forced to pay fees to support the union under a union security agreement. Janus v. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, No. 16-1466 (Jun. 27, 2018).

First Amendment Retaliatory Arrest Claims. The presence of probable cause will not bar a First Amendment retaliatory arrest claim against a municipality, rather than against the individual arresting officer. Whether a retaliatory arrest claim may be maintained against an arresting officer who has probable cause is left for another day, though the Court noted the “undoubted force” in the City’s argument that probable case should be bar, just as it is a bar in retaliatory prosecution cases. Lozman v. Riviera Beach, No. 17-21 (Jun. 18, 2018). [Editor’s note: The Ninth Circuit in Ford v. City of Yakima, 706 F.3d 1188 (9th Cir. 2013), held that an individual’s First Amendment right was violated when the officers, who had probable cause to arrest, booked and jailed the individual in retaliation for his protected speech. The individual’s criticism of the police for what he perceived to be an unlawful and racially motivated traffic stop fell squarely within the protective umbrella of the First Amendment. The decision in Lozman does not impact the Ford case.]

Eyewitness Identification. Due process concerns arise only when law enforcement officers use an identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary. A procedure that may have fallen short of the ideal in some respect is not automatically “impermissibly suggestive. Suppression is not the inevitable consequence of an unnecessarily suggestive procedure. Sexton v. Beaurdeaux, No. 17-1106 (Jun. 28, 2018).

Police and the First Amendment. A police officer may lawfully prevent a person from praying at a particular time and place, such as when a suspect who is under arrest seeks to delay the trip to the jail by insisting on first engaging in conduct that, at another time, would be protected by the First Amendment. When an officer’s order to stop praying is alleged to have occurred during the course of investigative conduct that implicates Fourth Amendment rights, the First and Fourth Amendment issues may be inextricable. Sause v. Bauer, No. 17-742 (Jun. 28, 2018).

Delays in Execution. In a lone dissent from a denial of certiorari, Justice Breyer contends that the question of whether a lengthy delay in executing a death sentence violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on “cruel and unusual” punishments. Contains an assertion “that the death penalty dotay lacks “requisite reliability.” Jordan v. Mississippi, No. 17-7153 (Breyer, J., dissenting from the denial of certiorari).

Cert. Grants of Interest:

Double Jeopardy. Gamble v. United States, No. 17-646. Question presented: “Whether the Court should overrule the ‘separate sovereigns’ exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Case information available here.

Retaliatory Arrests. Nieves v. Bartlett, No. 17-1174. Question presented: “In Hartman v. Moore, 54 7 U.S. 250 (2006), this Court held that probable cause defeats a First Amendment retaliatory-prosecution claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as a matter of law. Does probable cause likewise defeat a First Amendment retaliatory-arrest claim under § 1983?” Case information available here.

Division Two

Citizen Complaints and Grand Juries. The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying a petition for a citizen complaint in a case in which the court found that there was “no willful disregard on behalf of the state or their oath or their duties.” The superior court did not abuse its discretion in denying a private person’s request to summon a grand jury to determine whether a particular person was involved in criminal activity within the county, after the prosecuting attorney’s office declined to file charges against the individual. The superior court found that it would not serve the public interest to second guess the prosecutor’s charging decision in this case, especially in light of the prosecutor’s inherent charging discretion. In re the Matter of the Petition of Ware, COA No. 50285-2-II (Jun. 26, 2018). [Editor’s Note: The court of appeals declined to reach the constitutional challenges to CrRLJ 2.1(c) and to citizen petitions to convene grand juries as the appeal could be decided on non-constitutional grounds.]

Division Three

Accomplice Liability. A Knapstad motion to dismiss murder charges was properly granted when the evidence leads one to conclude that the defendant did not consent to a duel. The defendant only retrieved his firearm after the other participant, who shot and killed a bystander, grabbed his weapon in order to defend himself. The defendant could have, but never did, shoot at the other participant in the fight before the other participant shot in the defendant’s direction. The defendant’s arming himself and hiding behind a car from the bullets of the other shooter does not fulfill the meaning of “encouragement” for purposes of accomplice liability. The defendant, moreover, was a “victim” of the other participant’s assaultive behavior. State v. Jameison, COA No. 34768-1-III (Jun. 28, 2018).

Drive-by Shooting. Drive-by shooting charges may not be maintained against an accused who he retrives a gun from the car in which he arrived to the scene of the homicide but crouches behind another car at the time he returns fire. State v. Jameison, COA No. 34768-1-III (Jun. 28, 2018).

Juries. When a juror, during deliberations, recalls that he witnessed some of the event forming the charges against the accused, the trial court must remove the juror and seat an alternative. A juror’s observation of a portion of the alleged crime implicates actual, not implied, bias. The seating of an actually biased juror can never be harmless. State v. Winborne, COA No. 35081-9-III (Jun. 26, 2018). Judge Pennell dissented.

Reckless Driving and Eluding. An officer’s use of the word “reckless” or “eluding” while testifying in a trial for violating RCW 46.61.024, attempting to elude police vehicle, constitutes improper opinion testimony. “An officer can testify to his observations of the driving of the defendant without drawing conclusions assigned to the jury.” State v. Winborne, COA No. 35081-9-III (Jun. 26, 2018). Judge Pennell dissented.

Oregon Supreme Court

Computer Search Warrants. The State is barred by Oregon Const. art. I, § 9 from using data that is “nonresponsive” to the warrant unless some other warrant exception applies. State v. Mansor, No. SC S064382 (Jun. 28, 2018). [Editor’s note: Oregon Const. art. I, § 9 contains language that is arguably less protective than Washington Const. art. I, § 7. Oregon Const. art. I, § 9 states that “No law shall violate the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable search, or seizure; and no warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath, or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the person or thing to be seized.”].