Two more opinions: arbitration and search & seizure
Optimer Int'l, Inc. v. RP Bellevue, LLC, No. 83807-1. Optimer leases space in the Bellevue Galleria, which is owned by RP Bellevue. The lease requires the parties to resolve disputes by arbitration and makes the arbitrator's decision "final and non-appealable ...." Optimer alleged RP Bellevue violated the lease and the parties went to arbitration. The arbitrator agreed with Optimer.
RP Bellevue challenged the arbitrator's decision in King County Superior Court. The court found that the lease constituted "a voluntary and knowing waiver of judicial review" and denied RP Bellevue's motion to vacate the arbitrated award. RP Bellevue appealed and, after supplemental briefing, the court of appeals decided that the Revised Uniform Arbitration Act "prohibits parties from waiving the limited review provided for in the act," and that this does not conflict with the State Constitution's contract clause (article I, section 23).
Today, the Supreme Court affirms the court of appeals and remands the case to superior court. The Court clarifies that Harvey v. University of Washington is overturned "insofar as it suggests that parties may waive judicial review of arbitration awards under the [Washington arbitration act]." Justice Susan Owens writes for the Court, joined by all other justices except new Justice Wiggins, who did not participate. Former Justice Sanders also signed the opinion as Justice Pro Tem. (briefs, argument)
State v. Schultz, No. 82238-7. Officers .jpg)
responding to a complaint about a man and woman yelling at each other in an apartment eventually entered the apartment and found a marijuana pipe there before they obtained a warrant, which lead to the discovery of methamphetamine. Was the search valid under article I, section 7, of the Washington State Constitution and the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States?
The facts most favorable to the State are as follows. The police received a phone call from a resident of an apartment complex about a yelling man and woman. The responding officers stood outside and overheard a man and woman talking loudly. The officers heard a man say that he wanted to be left alone and needed his space. The officers knocked on the door. Schultz opened it, appearing agitated and flustered. Officer Malone asked Schultz about the male occupant of the apartment. Schultz told her no one was there, but when confronted with the fact the officers heard voices, summoned Robertson from a nearby bedroom. When Robertson appeared, the officers entered Schultz's apartment based upon her acquiescence only.
The Court holds that while the officers acted in good faith, there is no "reasonableness" exception in the Washington Constitution's protection against warrantless searches. The Court will not create a "good faith" exception to Washington's protection of privacy within the home; the evidence does not establish that an existing exception to the warrant requirement applies. The Court holds that the search was without authority of law and suppresses the evidence according to the exclusionary rule.
Justice Chambers wrote for a five-member majority. Justice Fairhurst, joined by four other justices, dissents and would find the officers' entry justified according to the emergency aid exception. (briefs, argument)
