Today's Opinions: City of Bellevue and Detention of Anderson

Posted on July 9, 2009 by Trent England

City of Bellevue v. Lee, et al., No. 81473-2. The nine respondents in this case each had his or her drivers license suspended after failing to pay a traffic citation fine. The Department of Licencing notified each person of the pending suspension and offered each an administrative review. This current process for license suspensions is the result of the Court's 2004 decision in City of Redmond v. Moore, where it invalidated an earlier drivers license suspension procedure for failing to satisfy due process requirements. Applying the three-pronged test from Mathews v. Eldridge, the Court today holds that Washington's current process for suspending drivers licenses does provide due process and upholds these license suspensions. Susan Owens writes the majority opinion and is joined by all of the other justices except Justice Sanders, who dissents. (briefs and argument)

In re Detention of Anderson, No. 79111-2. As a teenager, John Charles Anderson raped two two-year-old boys and a 13-year-old boy and then sexually abused his roommated in a juvenile rehabilitation center. He was voluntarily committed to Western State Hospital, where he had sexual relationships with at least eight patients; four of these patients were considered particularly vulnerable persons. Anderson decided to leave Western State and the State petitioned to commit him as a sexually violent predator. Anderson refused to use the expert witness provided to him by the state and requested a different expert, Dr. Richard Wollert. The State objected and the trial court denied Anderson's request. At the conclusion of the trial, the court ordered Anderson's commitment and Anderson appealed. He argued that the State had not proved the requisite "recent overt act" and that it wrongly denied his request for a different expert witness. The Court of Appeals sided with the state on the first of these and with Anderson on the second.

Here the Court of Appeals is upheld and the matter remanded for a new trial. Justice James Johnson writes for five members of the Court. Justice Sanders dissents and would dismiss. Justice Fairhurst, joined by Justices Chambers and Stephens, dissents. Both dissenting opinions would find insufficient evidence of a "recent overt act" to justify civil committment. (briefs and argument)

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tomorrow's opinions, July 9, 2009

Posted on July 8, 2009 by Michael Reitz

City of Bellevue v. Lee, et al., No. 81473-2 (briefs and argument). In this case Shin Lee and others respondents had their drivers license suspended for failure to respond, appear, pay or comply with the terms of a traffic citation. Each person was given a notice of suspension with an opportunity to appeal. The respondents challenged the appeal procedure, arguing it does not comply with due process procedures. King County Superior Court ruled the administrative review and appeal of a license suspension is unconstitutional. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the appeals statutes provide adequate safeguards to ensure against the erroneous suspension of a license, so as to meet due process requirements. The Office of the Attorney General filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the City of Bellevue.

In re Detention of Anderson, No. 79111-2 (briefs and argument). John Charles Anderson was committed as a sexually violent predator based on his conduct while at Western State Hospital, and he appealed, arguing that the trial court erred when it (1) admitted statements he made during his treatment at Western State Hospital; (2) found he committed a recent "overt act"; and (3) refused to allow his chosen expert's testimony. The Court of Appeals (Div. II) reversed the commitment and ordered a new trial.

McAllister v. Bellevue Firemen’s Pension Board, No. 81187-3 (briefs and argument). David and Ken McAllister were firefighters in Bellevue, and contributed to a city pension plan. Under this plan, pension benefits were based on firefighters’ salaries, but when calculating benefits, the salaries were considered to be capped at the battalion chief level. David and Ken were Chief and Deputy Chief when they retired, so the pension cap would have applied to them. In 1969, Washington State replaced local pension plans with a single state plan for all firefighters and police. Under this plan salaries are not capped. The state plan provided that if a firefighter would have received higher benefits under a local plan, the local government was responsible to make up the difference. In accordance with this provision, the City of Bellevue made additional payments to the McAllisters. But in calculating the McAllister’s benefits under the city plan, the city did not cap their salaries as the city plan required. When this was discovered, the city reduced its payments to match what the McAllisters should been receiving, but did not require back payments. The McAllisters sued, and lost at trial and on appeal.

State v. Engel, No. 81072-9 (briefs and argument). Roger Engel was convicted of second-degree burglary. After the Court of Appeals (Div. I) upheld his conviction, he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that to support a conviction for burglary, the State had to prove that Mr. Engel unlawfully entered a building, which is defined to include a “fenced area.” Mr. Engel was convicted for unlawfully entering the yard of Western Asphalt Company, which was only fenced on one-third of its border. Mr. Engel argues that a yard only partially enclosed by a fence cannot be a “building” as defined by the burglary statutes. See RCW 9A.04.110(5).

Tags: , , , ,