Today's arguments - June 8, 2010
Today the Court will hear four arguments. (Docket, briefs)
Morning session
In re Sandra Ferguson, No. 200719-8. This disciplinary hearing concerns an attorney who violated the Rules of Professional Conduct.
According to the findings of the disciplinary board, Sandra Ferguson appeared before a court ex parte and filed a motion for injunctive relief and an order of contempt, which was granted. She did not notify the opposing party, however, but misled the judge into believing she had. Her license was suspended for ninety days.
State v. Montano, No. 82855-8. The Court will hear argument on whether general threats to a police officer constitute an attempt to influence the officer's actions, an element in the crime of intimidating a public servant.
Jose Montano resisted arrest for assault and officers had to shock him twice before they could handcuff him. On the way to jail, Montano threatened the officer driving him with statements including “I know when you get off work, and I will be waiting for you,” “I'll kick your a**,” and “I know you are afraid, I can see it in your eyes.” Montano was charged with intimidating a public servant.
One element of the crime involves proving that the defendant intended to influence the servant's official actions. The trial court dismissed the charge against Montano because there was no evidence that he wanted to influence the officer's actions. The Division Three Court of Appeals reversed, however, holding that the jury could infer an intent to influence from Montano's statements.
Afternoon session
State v. Immelt, No. 83343-5. Is honking your car horn repeatedly in a neighborhood a protected form of speech?
Snohomish County Code prohibits horn honking for purposes other than public safety. Helen Immelt, angry at a neighbor, honked her horn in front of his house for about ten minutes just before 6:00 a.m. Police came and warned Immelt to stop honking. She claimed her horn was broken, but then honked several times as she drove away. The police caught and arrested her.
Snohomish County Code prohibits horn honking for purposes other than public safety. Immelt challenges this ordinance as a free speech violation. The court held that her honking was not “speech,” and thus not protected.
Burton v. Twin Commander Aircraft, No. 83030-4. Here the Court must determine whether Twin Commander is an airplane manufacturer under federal law. If so, then Burton's claim is likely barred by a federal statute of limitations.
Twin Commander Aircraft bought the “type certificate” for a particular model of aircraft from Gulfstream. The type certificate authorizes the owner to manufacture a particular model of aircraft, and requires them to support the aircraft. Twin Commander has never actually manufactured the aircraft in question, but does manufacture spare parts, issues safety bulletins and provides other support services
Twenty years ago one of the aircraft in question crashed. Kenneth Burton, personal representative of the victims, sued Twin Commander for damages resulting from the crash. The federal General Aviation Revitalization Act puts an 18-year statute of limitations on suits against the manufacturer of an aircraft. Twin Commander argues that this bars the plaintiffs' claim. Division One Court of Appeals ruled that Twin Commander has failed to prove that it is a “manufacturer” of the aircraft, however, and thus covered by the statute of limitations.
