Today's Opinions: City of Aberdeen v. Regan
City of Aberdeen v. Regan, No. 82476-2. Francis Regan was convicted of fourth degree assault in Aberdeen Municipal Court. The Court sentenced him to 365 days in jail, but suspended 360 days of the sentence in favor of placing Regan on probation for 24 months. A condition of Regan's probation required that he have no "criminal violations of law...."
During his probation, Regan was charged, tried, and acquitted for fourth degree assault and criminal trespass. The city moved to 
revoke his probation; Regan argued that the city was collaterally estopped by the acquittal. The municipal court revoked 5 days of Regan's suspension. He appealed and the superior court reversed; the city appealed and the Court of Appeals reversed and reinstated the ruling of the municipal court.
The Supreme Court accepted review of the case to consider whether a probation condition requiring no "criminal violations of law" requires a court
to find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant has committed a crime or find that the defendant has been convicted of a crime before the court may revoke the suspension?
The Court today affirms the Court of Appeals. Probation is "not a 'matter of right but is a matter of grace, privilege, or clemency granted to the deserving.'" In Regan's case, his probation included a condition that "unambiguously restrict[ed him] from engaging in conduct that is proscribed by the criminal law." Because the standard in probation hearings is "reasonable satisfaction," the acquittal (based on the higher "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard) did not estop the city from finding Regan in violation of his probation. The majority opinion is written by Justice Fairhurst and joined by four other justices.
Justice Alexander, joined by Justices Chambers and James Johnson, finds the majority's position in agreement with the Court's precedent and reluctantly concurrs.
My aversion to the result stems from my view that it is somewhat unfair for a city to seek revocation of Francis Regan's probation for noncompliance with a condition that he have "[n]o criminal violations of law" when Regan was acquitted in that same court of criminal charges that arose from facts identical to those that led to revocation of his probation.
Justice Sanders dissents. He would find the language ambiguous, apply the rule of lenity, and reinstate the decision of the superior court. (briefs, argument)
This is a terrible decision. All an agency has to do now, if they wish to revoke or someone feels vindictive, is to drum up a charge and even if the person is acquitted of charges they succeed. Very Stalinistic. I hope someone in the legislature fixes this.