Plea agreements
Division III
Employment Law – A trial court errs in ordering arbitration of a disciplinary action when the collective bargaining agreement clearly excludes disciplinary actions from the grievance process and from arbitration and instead provides that disciplinary actions are subject to the civil service rules and regulations. Teamsters Local 839 v. Benton County, No. 40861-2-III (Jul. 7, 2026)
United States Supreme Court
Search and Seizure – In this case involving geofence warrants the Court held that police officers conduct a “search” under the Fourth Amendment when they acquire an individual’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (Jun. 29, 2026)
Division II
Attorney Discipline – The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), Ch. 34.05 RCW, does not apply to the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA). Here, the WSBA denied an attorney’s request for a jury trial on whether she violated the ethics rules. The attorney then filed a petition for judicial review of the denial, under the APA, in Superior Court. The Superior Court correctly dismissed the petition because the APA does not apply to the WSBA and the Superior Court did not have authority to review the petition. The Washington Supreme Court has exclusive authority over lawyer discipline and can address whether disciplinary proceedings must be tried before a jury. The WSBA does not impose discipline. The WSBA makes disciplinary recommendations to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court imposes discipline. Shogren v. Washington State Bar Association, No. 60736-1-II (Jun. 30, 2026)
United States Supreme Court
Second Amendment – The federal Gun Control Act violates the Second Amendment to the extent that it prohibits “any unlawful user” of “any controlled substance” from possessing a firearm. 18 U. S. C. §922(g)(3). The Court chose not to address the constitutionality of laws that prohibit addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm; laws that the legislature adopts after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms; laws disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often drug-related ones). Nor did the court address whether the government could bring a prosecution under §922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof of the defendant’s dangerousness when using the controlled substance. These questions were not before the court. United State v. Hemani, No. 24-1234 (Jun. 18, 2026)
Plea Agreements – An agreement not to appeal a sentence is unenforceable when it would result in a miscarriage of justice – meaning, when it would leave in place the kind of egregious error that would bring the judicial system into disrepute. Hunter v. United State, No. 24-1063 (Jun. 18, 2026)
Division II
Prosecutorial Misconduct – A prosecutor does not commit misconduct by asking potential jurors “Does anybody here feel like they would not be able to convict based on testimony alone?” The question does not improperly implicate the unique facts of the case, nor does it commit potential jurors to a verdict. Rather, it seeks to assess whether the potential jurors can follow RCW 9A.44.020(1). State v. Camacho, No. 59503-6-II (May 22, 2026, Motion to Publish Granted Jun 18, 2026)
Jury Unanimity – The invited error doctrine prevents a defendant from challenging, for the first time on appeal, the trial court’s failure to give a Petrich unanimity instruction where the defendant’s proposed jury instructions did not contain a unanimity instruction, and where the defendant declined the court’s proposal to give a related limiting instruction. State v. Camacho, No. 59503-6-II (May 22, 2026, Motion to Publish Granted Jun 18, 2026)
Division III
Attempted Rape of a Child in the Second Degree – In a prosecution for Attempted Rape of a Child in the Second Degree, the defendant’s subjective belief about the intended victim’s age is relevant and material to prove his intent, but it is not a separate element that the State must prove. State v. Erlandson, No. 40207-0-III (Jun. 16, 2026, Published in part)
Washington Supreme Court:
Torts – Plaintiffs in a premises liability case, to prove the cause element of negligence, must prove the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the unsafe condition unless the “reasonable foreseeability” exception applies. A genuine issue of material fact as to whether the reasonable foreseeability exception applies precludes summary judgement. A trier of fact could find that allowing customers to help themselves to bulky items stored on high shelves could result in reasonably foreseeable injuries to customers from falling items. Galassi v. Lowe’s Home Ctrs. LLC, No. 102410-0 (Mar. 13, 2025)
Division II:
Foreign convictions – The holding of Erlinger v. United States, 602 U.S. 821 (2024) is limited only to the federal Armed Career Criminal Act. A judge, rather than a jury, may make the determination of whether a prior out-of-state conviction is comparable to a Washington offense. The state was not obligated to inform the defendant in the charging document that it would seek to have his out-of-state convictions included in his offender score. State v. Frieday, No. 58467-1-II (Mar. 11, 2025).
Search & Seizure – An affidavit for a search warrant for an illegal cannabis grow need not necessarily include that the officers have checked the legal status of the grow operation and confirmed that the grow operations are not registered with the State. State v. Le, No. 58336-4-II (Mar. 11, 2025).
(Editor’s note: It’s still a good idea to include this information.)
Division III:
Plea agreements – The State’s unfulfilled promise to return property to the accused in a plea agreement is specifically enforceable within the criminal case. Allowing the defendant to withdraw his plea is not a just remedy since withdrawal of the guilty plea could cause him to lose the benefit of his bargain. State v. McManis, No. 39680-1-III (Mar. 11, 2025).
Plea agreements – Although plea agreements are governed by contract law, they also implicate due process and criminal procedure, so not all contract law principles apply. The contract doctrine of an illusionary promise does not belong in plea agreement jurisprudence. And mutuality in each clause of a contract is not required when consideration is given for the contract as a whole, as in a plea agreement. State v. McManis, No. 39680-1-III (Mar. 11, 2025).
Second Amendment – Unlawful Possession of Firearms (UPOF) conviction predicated on a nonviolent felony is not unconstitutional, even when the predicate is Escape from Community Custody on community custody ordered pursuant to a conviction invalidated by Blake. State v. Olson, No. 39517-1-III (Mar. 11, 2025).
Pro se defendants – In reviewing whether a defendant’s waiver of counsel was knowing, intelligent and voluntary, the appellate court is not limited to the court’s colloquy with the defendant at the time of the waiver, but may review the broader record. A court need not discuss collateral consequences (with the exception of deportation) with the defendant during the colloquy. State v. Sochirca, No. 39751-3-III (March 13, 2025).
Animal cruelty – A person may kill a dog that is chasing, biting, injuring or killing domestic animals, pursuant to RCW 16.08.020, but not inflict undue suffering. State v. Sochirca, No. 39751-3-III (March 13, 2025)