WEEKLY ROUNDUP FOR THE WEEK OF February 24, 2025
U.S. Supreme Court:
Prosecutor’s duty – The State violates its obligations under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause when it fails to correct false trial testimony from a key witness that the state knew to be false, even when that witness’ credibility was already impugned and the defense could have known that the testimony was false. Glossip v. Oklahoma, No. 22-7466 (February 25, 2025).
Attorney’s fees – Parties who gain only preliminary injunctive relief before the action becomes moot do not qualify as “prevailing parties” eligible for attorney’s fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b) if no court conclusively resolved their claims by granting enduring judicial relief on the merits that materially altered the legal relationship between the parties. A preliminary injunction may become irreversible by way of mootness but that does not convert it into a permanent injunction or result in a decision on the merits. Lackey v. Stinnie, No. 23–621 (February 25, 2025).
Division II:
Juvenile sentences – RCW 13.40.160(11), which states, “In no case shall the term of confinement imposed by the court at disposition exceed that to which an adult could be subjected for the same offense” does not refer to the standard range, since the SRA provides for exceptional sentences, and an adult “could” be subjected to an exceptional sentence up to the statutory maximum. State v. M.V., No. 58853-6-II (February 25, 2025).
Search & seizure – The independent source doctrine allows admission of digital evidence seized from a cell phone pursuant to a valid warrant regardless of whether the officer’s initial, warrantless seizure of the physical phone was authorized. State v. Tyson, No. 58888-9-II (February 25, 2025).
Foreign case of interest:
Search & seizure – Using a cell phone’s camera to see through tinted windows does not violate reasonable expectations of privacy, and therefore not a “search” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. State laws on tinted windows require a degree of opacity, and cell phones with cameras are both widely available and routinely used by the general public. United States v. Poller, No. 24-75-cr (2nd Cir. February 20, 2025).
(Editor’s note: This case uses the Fourth Amendment’s “reasonableness” standard, rather than the more protective Article 1 § 7 analysis, however, Washington case law has generally agreed with Fourth Amendment analysis on the use of “enhancing senses” using commonly available techniques such as flashlights, binoculars, etc. See e.g. State v. Rose, 128 Wn.2d 388 (1996). Caution is advised, however.)