WEEKLY ROUNDUP FOR THE WEEK OF March 3, 2025
Washington Supreme Court:
Search & seizure – Ferrier warnings are not required when an officer is simply investigating a complaint and not searching for evidence, regardless of whether the officer describes the encounter as a “knock and talk.” State v. Mercedes, No. 102622-6 (March 3, 2025).
(Editor’s note: In this case, an animal control officer requested to see the defendant’s livestock after receiving complaints from a neighboring ranch that the horses were emaciated. The majority holds that no Ferrier warnings were required due to the nature of the contact. One concurrence argues that this result is not dependent on the location of the contact, e.g. around, but not in, the house. A second concurrence would have decided the case on the location of the contact, which was the issue briefed by the parties.)
Elections – The voter signature verification statute, RCW 29A.40.110(3), is not facially unconstitutional under the WA constitution, at least not when coupled with the increasingly expansive cure system that Auditor’s offices use. Washington’s signature verification law does not facially violate the freedom of elections clause, the privileges and immunities clause, or the due process clause of our state constitution. Nothing in the opinion should be read to foreclose an as-applied challenge to the way signature verification has been used in specific instances or places. Vet Voice v. Hobbs, No. 102569-6 (March 6, 2025).
Division I:
Prosecutorial error – The term “beef” (as in a dispute) does not have a clear racial connotation to an objective observer, absent additional context. State v. Bellerouche, No. 84887-9-I (March 3, 2025).
(Editor’s note: There is a lengthy dissent.)
Prosecutorial error – The State does not burden-shift by arguing in rebuttal that the defendant must be the “unluckiest man in the world” to be accused of sexual assault on four different occasions, by four different women, when the defense questioned the truthfulness and memory of the accusers. Such an argument is simply an appeal to the jury’s common sense, or to the (rough) laws of probability. State v. Shakir, No. 84717-1-I (March 3, 2025, unpublished).
Division II:
Motions to dismiss – When the State moves to dismiss a case without prejudice pursuant to CrR 8.3(a), the trial court lacks authority to dismiss with prejudice, absent some finding that would warrant dismissal pursuant to CrR 8.3(b). State v. W.H., No. 59094-8-II (March 4, 2025).
Public records – An agency’s failure to search email accounts for responsive records, when there is some evidence that related emails existed, creates at least a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the City failed to conduct an adequate search that was reasonably calculated to uncover all relevant documents responsive to a request for: “all records the Downtown Redevelopment Authority got from the auditor… [r]egarding the most recent state audit.” Hood v. City Of Vancouver, No. 59242-8-II (Mar. 4, 2025).
Foreign case of interest:
Best evidence rule – Admitting testimony about text messages without admitting the original text messages does not violate the best evidence rule where testimony established that the receiving cell phone was lost, the sending phone could not be accessed, and there was no evidence that the State destroyed the text messages in bad faith. Tucker v. State, No. S25A0070 (Ga. Feb. 18, 2025).
(Editor’s note: The Georgia Supreme Court applied Georgia’s Best Evidence Rule which contains the same exception for lost or destroyed writings as Washington State’s Best Evidence Rule. ER 1002, ER 1004(a).)