Rosselle Pekelis

In State v. Thorn, the State appealed the suppression of evidence in a prosecution for possession of a controlled substance after a police officer approached a legally parked car, observed a flicker of light, and asked the driver, "Where is the pipe?" leading the driver to hand over drug paraphernalia and resulting in the discovery of psilocybin mushrooms. The trial court and Court of Appeals had suppressed the evidence, finding that the question constituted a seizure without reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, concluding that whether a seizure occurred is a mixed question of law and fact reviewed de novo, and that the officer's single question did not rise to the level of a seizure because it would not have caused a reasonable person to believe they were not free to leave. The court declined to consider greater protections under the Washington Constitution due to insufficient briefing on the Gunwall factors.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved the State of Washington's appeal from a Court of Appeals decision that reversed an exceptional sentence imposed on Eliezer Cardenas after he pleaded guilty to vehicular assault and hit-and-run injury. Cardenas, while driving drunk at high speed in a residential area, struck 69-year-old Margaret Michel in her yard, causing her severe injuries including a leg amputation, and then fled the scene. The trial court had imposed a 60-month exceptional sentence based on multiple factors including the victim's particular vulnerability due to advanced age, the severity and multiplicity of her injuries, and the defendant's egregious conduct. The Supreme Court held that the Court of Appeals erred in rejecting victim vulnerability as a valid aggravating factor under the Sentencing Reform Act, since the statute expressly allows consideration of a victim's advanced age, but agreed that the injury-related factors were not valid because the injuries were of the type contemplated by the vehicular assault statute. The court therefore upheld the exceptional sentence on the basis of victim vulnerability alone.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by the Organization to Preserve Agricultural Lands (OPAL) to Adams County's issuance of an Unclassified Use Permit allowing Waste Management to build a private regional landfill. The trial court upheld the permit after rejecting claims that the environmental impact statement was inadequate for omitting offsite alternatives and deferring groundwater studies, that the commissioners violated the appearance of fairness doctrine or the Open Public Meetings Act, that the permit conflicted with the county's solid waste plan, and that it was improperly tied to host fee payments. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the project was private so offsite alternatives were not required, that phased review and the studies were sufficient at this stage, that no procedural violations occurred, and that OPAL lacked standing to contest the fees under procurement statutes.

environmentbusiness & regulatory

The case involved petitioners seeking to place Initiative 641, which aimed to create a national direct democracy process through state initiatives, on the Washington ballot. The Attorney General declined to prepare a ballot title, determining the measure exceeded the state's legislative authority, and the superior court dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court held that while the Attorney General should have prepared the ballot title, the initiative was not within the scope of the people's initiative power under the state constitution because it primarily sought to enact federal law and lacked an independent state purpose. Therefore, the court affirmed the dismissal, preventing the initiative from appearing on the ballot.

electionsfederal power

The case involved Tyrone Thomas's conviction for first-degree possession of stolen property after a one-day trial in which he did not testify. Thomas appealed, claiming the trial court erred by failing to advise him of his constitutional right to testify on his own behalf under the U.S. and Washington Constitutions. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the trial court has no duty to conduct a colloquy or advise the defendant of this right because ensuring a knowing and voluntary waiver is the responsibility of defense counsel, and evidence from counsel's affidavit showed Thomas had discussed and decided against testifying. The court also rejected an independent state constitutional claim due to inadequate briefing under the Gunwall factors.

criminal lawcivil rights

Dr. Scott Sherman was terminated from the University of Washington School of Medicine's anesthesiology residency program after an incident suggesting possible drug use while treating a patient, following his prior treatment for chemical dependency on anesthetic narcotics. Sherman sued under the Washington Administrative Procedure Act challenging the termination and added claims including breach of contract, handicap discrimination, and retaliatory discharge against the State, University, and officials. The trial court granted summary judgment to Sherman without reaching the merits of the termination, vacated the University's order, awarded nearly $900,000 in damages and fees, and disqualified the Attorney General's office from representing the appellants. The Supreme Court reversed all these rulings and remanded for trial on the remaining claims.

labor & employmentcivil rightsprocedurehealthcare