Juvenile confinement
Washington Supreme Court:
Victim’s rights – Where a trial court has allowed a nonparty, such as a victim or a victim’s survivor, to intervene to protect a legally cognizable interest, such as privacy, an appellate court may allow that nonparty to intervene on appeal, but solely on the issues the nonparty addressed in the trial court. State v. Thompson, No. 103338-9 (August 28, 2025).
Division I:
Juvenile confinement – At Green Hill School, juveniles were confined to their cells for lengthy periods due to staff shortages and overcrowding and had to urinate into plastic containers when bathroom wait times were too long. These conditions did not deprive the juveniles of human dignity, and were not severely unhygienic, and therefore not unconstitutionally cruel. Because the violations were statutory, as the State conceded, the proper remedy was to require the facility to comply with the statutes at once, but not to release the juveniles. In Re PRP of M.T.M.L., No. 86707-5-I (Aug. 25, 2025).
(Editor’s note: While this case was pending, one of the juveniles was transferred to a group home and subsequently escaped and, according to the opinion, is still at large.)
Foreign cases of interest:
Traffic stops – Roadside questioning generally falls into four categories: 1) small talk; 2) infraction-related inquires; 3) officer- and roadway safety-related inquires (which may include brief, casual questioning aimed at gauging risks or deescalating a situation); and 4) off-mission inquires. Benign small talk has no constitutional significance. Infraction-related inquires are obviously permitted. Questions that initially appear unrelated to officer safety may qualify as on-mission, safety-related inquiries when: 1) the officer has an articulable basis for safety concerns grounded in observable facts; 2) the questions, taken in context, can be reasonably understood as relating to those safety concerns, such as an effort to defuse tension, assess demeanor, determine the degree of caution needed, or evaluate whether the driver presents a threat; and 3) the officer does not prolong the stop with unrelated follow-up inquiries once reassured. Off-mission inquires that extend the time of a traffic stop must be supported by reasonable suspicion that there is an additional crime besides the reason for the initial stop to pass constitutional muster. Here, a 5-second exchange where an officer complemented the driver’s watch and asked him what he did for a living was constitutionally permissible because the driver exhibited signs of anxiety and nervousness, and such small talk could lower the “temperature” of the stop, and was not intrusive, in-depth, or asked repeatedly, and the officer asked no follow-up questions. United States v. Ross, No 23-1631 (3rd Cir., August 19, 2025).
Second amendment – Blanket waiting periods for firearm sales infringe on the Second Amendment by preventing the lawful acquisition of firearms and are not consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of regulating firearms. Ortega, et al. v. Lujan Grisham, et al., No. 24-2121 (10th Cir., August 19, 2025).