WEEKLY ROUNDUP FOR THE WEEK OF March 24, 2025
Washington Supreme Court:
Conditions of sentence – Random breath and urine testing to monitor compliance of statutorily authorized conditions of a sentence in a case that did not involve substance use are constitutionally permissible. State v. Nelson, No. 102942-0 (March 27, 2025).
Discretionary review – RAP 2.3(b)(3), which allows discretionary review where the court has “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings… as to call for review…” applies to substantive irregularities, not just procedural irregularities. In Re Dependency of C.J.J.I., No. 103541-1 (March 27, 2025).
Recall Petitions – A legal voter of the state lacks standing to petition to recall a public officer of a political subdivision if he or she is not a legal voter of the political subdivision from where the officer was elected. In the Matter of the Recall of Suggs, No. 103314-1 (Mar. 27, 2025).
Division I:
Immunity – Washington’s anti-SLAPP statute (RCW 4.24.510) provides immunity from civil liability to a nurse who tells police a patient assaulted her, where the communication touches on the patient’s personal health information, and the patient sues the nurse for violating the Uniform Healthcare Information Act (Chapter 70.02 RCW) and for invasion of privacy. Campanelli v. Peacehealth Southwest Medical Center, No. 86615-0-I (Mar. 24, 2025).
(Editor’s Note: Washington has more than one anti-SLAPP statute. See e.g. M.G. v. Bainbridge Island School District, No. 86846-2-I (Mar. 24, 2025) discussing a different anti-SLAPP statute, Chapter 4.105 RCW.)
Division II:
Missing evidence instruction – Defense was not entitled to a missing evidence instruction when video evidence of the crime was deleted by a third party in the normal course, even though the police knew about the footage but failed to retrieve it. The video was not uniquely available to the State, and absence of the footage was explained – the clerk on duty at the time of the crime didn’t have access to the surveillance footage. State v. Plotnikov, No. 59063-8-II (March 25, 2025, unpublished).
Division III:
Comparability – Oregon’s crimes of Theft, Robbery and Burglary are not legally comparable to Washington’s Theft, Robbery and Burglary statutes. State v. Zimmerman, No. 39765-3-III (March 28, 2025).
(Editor’s note: In this case, most of the defendant’s prior Oregon convictions were found to be factually comparable, based on the language in the foreign charging instruments. Oregon’s “plea petitions” {equivalent of a Statement of Defendant on Plea of Guilty} will seldom contain a statement to satisfy a factual basis for a plea. However, Oregon’s pleading rules require very specific charging language. Therefore, you will frequently find specific allegations in an Oregon Information or Indictment which may prove factual comparability.)
9th Circuit:
Second amendment – The Second amendment protects the right to bear “arms,” not “accoutrements” to arms, such as high-capacity magazines. But even if it did, California’s ban on possessing large capacity magazines is consistent with the Nations’ tradition of protecting innocent persons by regulating a component of a firearm. Duncan v. Bonta, No. 23-55805 (9th Cir. Mar. 20, 2025).
Search warrants – A search warrant for an electronic device that includes a provision to search for evidence of dominion and control must establish probable cause that the evidence of dominion and control is relevant and follow the same particularity requirement for the dominion and control provision as any other evidence. United States v. Holcomb, No. 23-469 (9th Cir., March 27, 2025).
Foreign case of interest:
Second amendment – Because minors have yet to reach the age of reason, Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act, which prohibits a person under 21 from purchasing a firearm, is consistent with the nations’ historical tradition of firearms regulation. Just because Florida lowered the age of majority for other rights does not mean that it has less power to restrict the rights of minors than it did at the Founding; distinguishing the right to purchase a firearm from other rights is consistent with the founding-era legal regime. N.R.A. v. Commissioner, Florida Dept. of Law Enforcement, No. 21-12314 (11th Cir. March 14, 2025).