Charles Z. Smith

The case involved a 12-year-old juvenile charged with possession of cocaine and marijuana after Renton police officers detained him and others late at night in a commercial area following an anonymous report of fighting. Officers determined no crime was occurring but detained the boys briefly to contact their parents under the community caretaking function, leading to a pat-down search before transport that uncovered drugs. The juvenile court denied the motion to suppress the evidence, and both the Court of Appeals and Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and disposition. The Supreme Court held that the brief detention to ensure the minor's safety was permissible under the Fourth Amendment once criminal suspicion had ended, and the pat-down for officer safety before placing him in a patrol car was reasonable in scope.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved part-time community college instructors who sued several Washington community college districts for unpaid minimum and overtime wages under the Washington Minimum Wage Act, claiming they were hourly employees not compensated for non-classroom work. The colleges argued that the instructors were professional employees paid on a salary basis and thus exempt from the Act's wage and overtime provisions. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' dismissal of the claims on summary judgment. The court reasoned that the instructors' compensation, calculated by multiplying contact hours by rates from collective bargaining agreements and paid in equal installments, included payment for outside work and was not subject to improper deductions, qualifying them as salaried professionals under the exemption.

labor & employment

In HJS Development, Inc. v. Pierce County, the dispute arose when a Pierce County hearing examiner revoked a developer's preliminary plat approval for a 63-lot residential subdivision on Fox Island under local code provisions allowing modification or revocation of permits for environmental and zoning compliance. The Thurston County Superior Court ruled for the developer, holding that state platting statutes in chapter 58.17 RCW preempted any local authority to revoke preliminary plat approvals. The Washington Supreme Court considered whether the examiner possessed revocation power, whether such local ordinances conflicted with or were preempted by state law including the five-year timeline for final plat submission under RCW 58.17.140, and whether revocation was clearly erroneous without first considering lesser sanctions.

propertyprocedureenvironmentbusiness & regulatory

The case concerned whether the Fraternal Order of Eagles' male-only membership policy violated Washington's Law Against Discrimination (WLAD), chapter 49.60 RCW. Local Aeries and female members challenged the Grand Aerie's refusal to admit women, after some chapters began doing so following an internal opinion finding the policy inconsistent with civil law. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and held that fraternal organizations qualify for the WLAD exemption only if they are "distinctly private," which requires examining factors such as selectivity, control over membership, and public versus private activities. The Eagles' scale, public events, facility rentals, and non-selective practices meant the policy was not exempt, so the organization must comply with the anti-discrimination statute.

civil rights

In this consolidated criminal case, brothers John and Paul Vickers were convicted in Pierce County Superior Court of first-degree felony murder, aggravated first-degree murder, and related charges stemming from an armed robbery and shooting at the 38th Street Pub in Tacoma, Washington, in January 1998. They appealed, challenging the validity of a search warrant based on information from a confidential informant, the suggestiveness of a photomontage used to identify Paul Vickers, and the use of John Vickers's prior conviction to sentence him as a persistent offender. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that the search warrant affidavit established probable cause despite a minor date error by the informant, that the photomontage was not impermissibly suggestive, and that the State need only prove the prior conviction by a preponderance of the evidence for sentencing purposes. The Court of Appeals decision was upheld in full.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned independent contractors N. John and Lyn Kilian, who operated a bumper boat concession for the City of Chelan for many years until the city council declined to renew their contract in 2000; the Kilians alleged that the non-renewal constituted age discrimination in violation of RCW 49.60.030 and brought the claim in federal court alongside other claims. The United States District Court certified to the Washington Supreme Court the question whether an independent contractor may assert an age discrimination claim under RCW 49.60.030. The court held that no such claim is available. It reached this conclusion through straightforward statutory interpretation, observing that the text of RCW 49.60.030 is unambiguous, does not extend to independent contractors, and must be read consistently with related provisions such as RCW 49.60.180 that distinguish employees from contractors, as previously recognized in Marquis v. City of Spokane.

labor & employmentcivil rights

The case concerned the suspension of Linda K. Cannon's driver's license by the Washington Department of Licensing after a breath alcohol test showed results above the legal limit following a traffic stop for suspected DUI. The Whatcom County Superior Court suppressed the test results and reversed the suspension, ruling that the test was invalid because the Department failed to prove the thermometer used in the BAC Verifier DataMaster device was certified under WAC 448-13-035 as required by the newly amended WAC 448-13-040 and 448-13-060. On certification from the Court of Appeals, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed the superior court's decision. The court held that the plain language of the administrative rules requires the proponent of the breath test in an implied consent proceeding to produce evidence of the thermometer's certification to establish the test's validity and precision.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned whether neighboring property owners could challenge a boundary line adjustment (BLA) granted by the Chelan County Planning Director to petitioners, which allegedly created substandard lots in violation of county ordinances. The trial court and Court of Appeals allowed the challenge to proceed despite being filed more than a year after the decision, holding that the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA) time limits applied only to quasi-judicial land use decisions and not to ministerial acts like BLAs. The Washington Supreme Court reversed, ruling that LUPA governs all land use decisions including ministerial ones, so the suit was time-barred by the 21-day filing deadline under RCW 36.70C.040, and petitioners were not entitled to damages under RCW 64.40.020.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned whether a juvenile court could grant deferred dispositions under RCW 13.40.127 in two separate cases against the same juvenile defendant for unrelated offenses committed on different dates. The trial court granted two consecutive deferred dispositions over the state's objection, finding the defendant eligible because he had no prior deferred disposition at the time of the hearing. The Court of Appeals reversed, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the statute's prohibition on deferred dispositions for juveniles who have "a prior disposition or deferred adjudication" barred the second order once the first was signed. The court reasoned that the plain language of the statute treats each separate order as creating a prior disposition for any subsequent one, even when both are considered at the same hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

In this dissolution action, a married couple disputed the disposition of two cryopreserved preembryos created via in vitro fertilization with donor eggs fertilized by the husband's sperm after the wife had undergone a hysterectomy. The trial court awarded the preembryos to the husband as part of a parenting plan, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed that decision. The court reasoned that the parties' cryopreservation agreement required mutual consent for any disposition of the preembryos and, in the absence of agreement after the contractual five-year period, directed that the preembryos be thawed and allowed to expire rather than awarded to either party.

family law

In State v. Barnes, the defendant was initially charged with third-degree assault; the State later obtained court approval to amend the information by adding a resisting-arrest count, arraigned the defendant on both charges, and proceeded to trial, but the amended document was never filed with the clerk. After the jury convicted the defendant on the added count, he argued on appeal that the failure to file deprived the superior court of subject-matter jurisdiction over that charge. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that superior-court jurisdiction over felonies arises from the state constitution and is not lost by a mere procedural omission in filing an information when the court has otherwise exercised its authority, the defendant has been arraigned and tried on the charge, and no timely objection was raised. The court distinguished non-jurisdictional defects in charging documents from true jurisdictional limits and rejected the argument that the missing filing automatically voided the proceedings.

criminal lawprocedure

Kathy Rivers, a journeyman bricklayer, sued the Washington State Conference of Mason Contractors and several member companies, including Fairweather Masonry, alleging gender discrimination in hiring and workplace treatment from 1995 to 1998. After she repeatedly missed deadlines for responding to discovery requests on damages and witnesses, the trial court granted a motion to compel and later dismissed her complaint with prejudice under CR 37 and local rules for failing to comply with the case schedule. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded for further proceedings. It held that the trial court abused its discretion by imposing the severe sanction of dismissal without first considering whether lesser sanctions would suffice, as required by precedent such as Burnet v. Spokane Ambulance. The Court also noted that the lack of oral argument on the dispositive motion did not constitute an irregularity under CR 60(b).

civil rightslabor & employmentprocedure

The case concerned Darrell D. Everybodytalksabout's conviction for first-degree murder and second-degree murder arising from the stabbing death of Rigel Jones during an alleged robbery and assault in Seattle. After a mistrial in the first proceeding due to perjured testimony by the state's principal witness, a second trial resulted in guilty verdicts, which the Court of Appeals affirmed. The Washington Supreme Court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, concluding that the trial court had improperly excluded admissible evidence and that the state's mismanagement of the case warranted relief.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Fisher, the petitioner challenged her conviction under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act after a bench warrant was issued for alleged violations of her pretrial release conditions, leading to her arrest and the seizure of evidence from her purse. The case centered on whether CrR 3.2(j)(1) required a showing of probable cause to authorize the warrant for a defendant who had pleaded guilty but was awaiting sentencing, or if a lesser standard of well-founded suspicion sufficed. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding that CrR 3.2(j)(1) applied only while the defendant retained accused status before the guilty plea, after which CrR 3.2(f) and related statutes governed release conditions for convicted felons. The court reasoned that the change in legal status upon conviction altered the applicable procedural rules for arrests based on release violations.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved homeowners James and Kiyoko Babcock suing Mason County Fire District No. 6 and its commissioners for negligence after firefighters' actions during a 1995 fire at the Babcocks' mobile home and garage, which were destroyed. The Babcocks argued that a special relationship with the fire district created an exception to the public duty doctrine, which generally immunizes firefighters from liability for duties owed to the public at large. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the lower courts' grant of summary judgment to the defendants. The core reasoning was that no special relationship existed to impose a specific duty on the firefighters toward the Babcocks individually, as the response was a general public service and the decisions made were within the scope of discretionary firefighting duties.

torts & liability

The case involved Jeffrey Lynn Connick's personal restraint petition challenging his 1999 Washington conviction and sentence for intimidating a witness, specifically disputing the calculation of his offender score under the Sentencing Reform Act based on 1992 North Carolina convictions for breaking and entering and larceny. The Court of Appeals had dismissed the petition, finding no record evidence that the North Carolina offenses constituted the "same criminal conduct" that would have reduced the score and standard sentencing range. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that Connick failed to substantiate his claim with evidence from the record, did not properly preserve the issue at sentencing, and could not demonstrate a fundamental defect warranting relief in a personal restraint petition. The decision turned on application of the SRA's offender score rules and procedural requirements for challenging prior convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved Ira Erwin Call's personal restraint petition challenging his sentence for first-degree robbery in Washington state court. At sentencing, both parties had agreed to an offender score of 10 that included two prior Texas convictions, resulting in a 129-month sentence at the low end of the standard range. Call later argued that the Texas convictions had washed out under the Sentencing Reform Act and should not have been counted, making his correct offender score 8. The Court of Appeals granted the petition and remanded for resentencing, and the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. The court held that the invited error doctrine does not bar relief because a sentencing court lacks authority to impose a sentence based on an incorrect offender score and has both the power and duty to correct such an error even when the parties jointly recommended it.

criminal lawprocedure

The case consolidated challenges by two defendants convicted under Washington's unlawful possession of firearms statute after prior felony convictions. In State v. Schmidt, the court addressed a 1994 amendment expanding the ban to all firearms for those convicted of crimes of violence; in State v. Ayers, it addressed a 1996 amendment applying the ban to any felony conviction. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed both convictions, ruling that the amendments did not violate constitutional prohibitions on ex post facto laws. The core reasoning was that the statutes punished only future conduct—possession of firearms after the amendments' effective dates—rather than the defendants' prior convictions or past behavior.

criminal lawguns

The case concerned whether Washington courts should impose a constructive trust on funds that Pierce County received in a federal quiet title and condemnation judgment against the United States after the closure of Woodbrook Road, with the City of Lakewood claiming entitlement to those funds or to required road improvements. The City filed suit in state superior court seeking the trust or an order compelling the improvements, but both the trial court and the Court of Appeals granted summary judgment to the County. The Washington Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the federal judgment and related documents contained no clear, cogent, and convincing evidence of an intent to benefit the City or to restrict the funds to particular projects that would support imposition of a constructive trust. The court further noted that the federal oral ruling and judgment did not create any fiduciary obligation or unjust enrichment enforceable by the City.

propertyprocedure

The case concerned a patient's lawsuit against her physician for unauthorized disclosure of confidential medical information to her former husband, which she alleged caused emotional distress and physical symptoms; the claims were narrowed to medical malpractice under chapter 7.70 RCW after other causes of action were dismissed. The trial court granted summary judgment to the doctor, the Court of Appeals reversed, and the Washington Supreme Court reversed the appellate decision to uphold the summary judgment. The court determined that such a claim must proceed under RCW 7.70, which requires expert medical testimony to prove causation of damages including emotional distress, and that the plaintiff had not met this evidentiary burden.

healthcaretorts & liability