Guillen v. Contreras, No. 82531-9. Jesus Jaime Torres was killed in a mysterious shootout in Sunyside, Washington, in 2005. From the bloody scene, police seized $57,990 "packaged to resemble a kilogram of cocaine" and Torres's car. They seized another $9,342 that was in Torres's possession when he was shot. Torres's infant son, through his mother, challenged the property seizures. The superior court overturned the seizures of the car and the $9,342. The family moved for attorney fees. The superior court, relying on "substantially prevailing party" analysis, declined to award fees. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed.

The Supreme Court today considers only "the meaning of the attorney fee provision of the forfeiture statute." The Court adopts the reasoning from the dissenting opinion by Chief Judge John Schultheis of the Court of Appeals and quotes from his opinion.

"[T]his forfeiture statute recognizes the success of only one party -- the claimant. What the seizing agency retains is not relevant. It will never be a substantially prevailing party or prevailing party under RCW 69.50.505(6)." Thus, he suggests, quantitative comparison is inappropriate as we are not balancing the comparative success of two parties with an equal statutory interest in attorney fees. We agree. This is an attorney fee provision designed to protect individuals against having their property wrongfully taken by the State. A bare mathematical approach is not appropriate. (citation removed; hyperlink inserted)

The case is remanded to the trial court to determine "the amount of attorney fees reasonably incurred by the respondents" for their successful claims. Justice Chambers wrote for the Court and was joined by seven other justices. Justice Sanders dissents because he believes the statute requires a recovery of all attorney fees rather than only those related to the successful claims. (briefs, argument)

Holden v. Farmers Ins. Co. of Wash., No. 81487-2.  A fire in Laura Holden's rented home damaged and destroyed some of her possessions. Her rental insurance carrier, Farmers Insurance, sent her a check for the "cost of repair and replacement," but did not include Washington state sales tax in its calculations. Holden eventually brought this suit, "seeking a declaration that sales tax should be accounted for in the [actual cash value] calculation...." The Court today holds for Holden, finding the term "fair market value" as used in the insurance policy to be ambiguous. The Court thus interprets the term in favor of the insured. Justice Stephens writes for the majority, joined by five other justices. Justice James Johnson dissents, contending that "fair market value" is not ambiguous and does not include "a (theoretical) sales tax...." His opinion is joined by Justices Alexander and Owens. (briefs, argument)

In re Det. of Hawkins, No. 82907-1. As part of proceedings to determine whether Jake Hawkins is a sexually violent predator according to RCW 71.09, the trial court ordered Hawkins to submit to a polygraph examination. Hawkins refused and appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court. The Supreme Court accepted review to determine whether RCW 71.09.040(4) allows such an order.

The Supreme Court today reverses the lower courts, holding that the order requiring a polygraph examination was not permitted by the statute.

Because the legislature is undoubtedly aware of the inherent problems with polygraph examinations, it is fair to infer that the legislature intends to prohibit compulsory polygraph examinations unless it expressly allows for their use. ...

We are satisfied that professional evaluators will be able to reach conclusions without the use of such evidence.

Justice Owens writes for the six-member majority. Justice Stephens, joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Fairhurst, disagree with the majority's interpretation of legislative intent and dissent. (briefs, argument)

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Scannell, No. 200,744-9. The Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) initiated an investigation of attorney John Scannell for conflicts of interest and assisting a suspended attorney to practice law. Scannell repeatedly and frivolously delayed the investigation, drawing it out from 2005 until today. The WSBA hearing officer found that Scannell had "negligently violated the conflict of interest rules--meriting minor sanctions--but that he had knowingly violated the rules requiring cooperation with disciplinary proceedings--meriting suspension." The disciplinary rule modified those findings, determining that Scannell's actions during the investigation were intentional and thus increasing the presumptive sanction to disbarment. The Board voted to disbar Scannell.

The Supreme Court today, in an opinion by Justice Stephens, exhaustively reviews the facts of the investigation and upholds the decision of the board. Three justices dissent, arguing in an opinion by Justice Alexander that the hearing officer's recommendation of suspension was the appropriate sanction. (briefs, argument)

In re Disciplinary Proceeding Against Shepard, No. 200,720-1.  Tacoma attorney Richard Shepard was found to have violated several Rules of Professional Conduct when he assisted a "living trust mill" that targeted seniors with unnecessary or improper financial products. The hearing officer recomended a six-month suspension, but the disciplinary board increased the recommendation to a two-year suspension. The Court today agrees with the board and suspends Shepard for two years. Justice Chambers writes for an almost-unanimous court. Justice Sanders dissents and would suspend Shepard for six months. (briefs, argument)

State v. Ervin, No. 83244-7.  James Ervin was convicted in 2006 of felony violation of a protective order. This appeal considers whether two earlier felony convictions should count toward Ervin's offender score at his sentencing. According to RCW 9.94A.525(2)(c), the two earlier felony convictions "washed out" if Ervin had subsequently been at least "five consecutive years in the community without committing any crime that subsequently results in a conviction." During a five year period, Ervin had not been convicted of any crimes but did spend 17 days in jail for violating probation. The State argued that the 17 days in jail restarted the five-year window. Ervin disagreed, arguing that only a conviction would reset the five years. While the Court finds the RCW somewhat ambiguous, it finds Ervin's reading more convincing. The lower courts are reversed and the case is remanded for resentencing with the lower offender score. The decision was unanimous, and Justice Owens wrote the opinion. (briefs, argument)

State v. Sanchez Valencia, No. 82731-1. Isidro Sanchez Valencia and Eduardo Chavez Sanchez were convicted of drug charges. Their sentences included community custody on the condition that they not use "items that could be used to ingest or process controlled substances, or to facilitate the sale or transfer of controlled substances." They appeal that provision as unconstitutionally vague, and the Court today unanimously agrees with the defendants. Justice Stephens wrote the Court's opinion. Justice James Johnson signed that opinion and added a concurrence pointing out that a simple change in language would allow a similar condition to stand. (briefs, argument)

Morning session

In re PRP of Shawn Dominique Francis, No. 82619-6. Whether the defendant waived his double jeopardy challenge to multiple convictions by pleading guilty to the crimes.

State v. Irby, No. 82665-0. Whether the trial court in a criminal prosecution violated the defendant’s constitutional right to be present when it dismissed some potential jurors outside the defendant’s presence after conferring with defense counsel and the State by email.

Afternoon session

In re W. Russell Van Camp, No. 200,799-6. Whether an attorney can avoid suspension while the bar association’s recommendation for disbarment is heard on appeal.

Guillen, City of Sunnyside v. Contreras, No. 82531-9. A man was killed in a drug deal and the police seized his car and money. The family of the man asked the judge to return the seized property, which the court did at one-quarter of its value. The question is whether the claimant in an action to recover property seized in a controlled substances investigation “substantially prevailed,” and thus was entitled to an award of attorney fees, even though she recovered in value less than one-quarter of the assets she sought.