Today's arguments - Jan. 13, 2011
The Supreme Court will hear arguments in three cases today (briefs, docket).
Morning session (starting at 9 a.m.)
State v. Williams, No. 83992-1. A Les Schwab store in Federal Way installed new tires on a Jeep Cherokee. Michael Williams came to pick up the vehicle, but his check was not accepted. He left a key to the vehicle with the store clerk, and said he was going to get some cash. A Les Schwab employee later noticed the Jeep was gone. When police tracked him down, Williams gave them a false name and lied about not having ID. He was eventually charged and convicted of third-degree theft, making a false or misleading statement to a public servant, and obstructing a law enforcement officer.
The obstruction statute makes it illegal to “willfully hinder, delay or obstruct” a police officer in the discharge of his duties. Williams argues based on case law that the statute applies to conduct, not pure speech. The court disagreed, holding that the plain meaning of the statute includes speech that obstructs an officer. Williams also argues that his right to effective assistance of counsel was violated.
Union Elevator and Warehouse Co. v. Department of Transportation, No. 83771-6. Union Elevator was awarded relocation expenses as a result of the Department of Transportation’s exercise of eminent domain. The trial court, however, did not award Union Elevator prejudgment interest on its award. The Department of Transportation argues that it need not pay interest because of sovereign immunity, while Union Elevator claims that sovereign immunity is waived for eminent domain proceedings.
Afternoon session (starting at 1:30 p.m.)
Cary, et. al v. Mason County, No. 83937-9. Is an assessment enacted by Mason County to fund the activities of the Mason Conservation District a valid special assessment?
Mason County enacted an annual assessment of $5.00 per parcel on “non forested” land in the county. The requirements for public entities to collect money from property owners differ depending on whether the charge is a special assessment, a tax, or a fee. Several landowners challenged the Mason County assessment, and the trial court ruled that it was an invalid tax. The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding that the assessment is a regulatory fee rather than a tax and that it meets the statutory requirements for a regulatory fee.
This case has attracted the attention of numerous public entities and organizations who have filed amicus curiae briefs discussing whether the court should analyze whether the county's assessment was proper. (Note: The publisher of this blog filed a brief in support of the property owners.)
