Seattle v. Robert St. John, No. 81992-1. After crashing his motorcycle in Seattle, Robert St. John was investigated for driving under the influence of alcohol. A police officer asked St. John to consent to a blood alcohol test, and when St. John refused, the officer obtained a warrant for the test. The results were suppressed in municipal court based on a broad interpretation of a provision of the Implied Consent law (RCW 46.20.308(1)) that prohibits performing the test once consent has been refused. The superior court reversed and the Court of Appeals certified three questions to the Supreme Court

1. Does the implied consent statute allow the State to administer a blood alcohol test pursuant to a warrant after a driver has declined a voluntary blood alcohol test?

2. Does an implied consent warning violate due process if it does not inform drivers that an officer may seek a warrant for a blood alcohol test even if the driver declines the voluntary blood alcohol test?

3. Does the doctrine of equitable estoppel bar the State from seeking a warrant for a blood alcohol test after informing drivers that they may refuse the voluntary blood alcohol test?

The Court today in an opinion by Justice Owens and joined by six other justices upholds the superior court and allows the blood test evidence. The Implied Consent law restricts performing a blood test pursuant to that law, but does not prohibit performing a blood test pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant (RCW 46.20.308). Similarly, the officer's statements about the Implied Consent law did not foreclose his obtaining the warrant. Justice Sanders, joined by Justice James Johnson, dissents. (briefs and argument).

In Re Forfeiture of One 1970 Chev. Chevelle and One 2004 Nissan Sentra, No. 81116-4. Thomas Roos was using both of his parents' cars for trafficking illegal drugs, presumably to cut overhead costs and pass the savings on to his customers. During one of four arrests in the summer of 2005, police seized the vehicles pursuant to RCW 69.50.505. His parents appeal the seizure based on the "innocent owner" exception. That provision allows a property owner to prevent seizure upon showing that the crime was done "without the owner's knowledge." The courts below rejected this argument, but the Court today reverses those decisions and sides with the parents. The majority opinion by Justice Charles Johnson and joined by four other justices notes that statutes often use language like "actual or constructive knowledge" or "knows or has reason to know." The Legislature did not extend "knowledge" in this statute, thus a property owner is not required to show that he had no reason to know of the illegal activity, only that he actually did not know.

Justice Madsen, joined by Justices Owens, Fairhurst, and Jim Johnson, concurs as to the Sentra and dissents on the Chevelle. "Because the Rooses did not take steps to prevent Thomas' use of the second car, the Chevelle, even after they knew of his arrest in the Nissan with a 110-gram brick of cocaine, I would uphold the hearing officer's forfeiture of the Chevelle."(briefs and argument).

The Division One Court of Appeals reversed and vacated the judgment, believing that the evidence presented at trial was insufficient to show that Kinkaid was "apparently under the influence of liquor" as required by the statute. Here, in an opinion by Justice Owens, the Court unanimously overturns the Court of Appeals decision and reinstates the jury verdict. The Court also rejects the arguments of amici Mothers Against Drunk Driving and the Washington State Association of Justice Foundation (trial lawyers) that the threshold for plaintiffs in these cases should be lowered. (briefs, argument, AP story)