Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Supreme Court of Washington Blog : Washington Public Policy & Budget News : Freedom Foundation : WA State Tax & Labor Law Commentary & Updates

State v. Morales, 84197-7. The Supreme Court, with Justice Charles Wiggins writing the majority, reversed a DUI conviction due to an inadequate test warning from the trooper.

The State of Washington requires that any individual arrested for vehicular assault must take a blood alcohol test. However, rules require that the individual must be given adequate warning regarding the test and informed that they have a right to select any qualified individual to perform further tests.

Jose Morales was arrested in 2004 following a vehicle collision in which he continued to drive for one mile after the wreck. The officer at the scene asked an interpreter to communicate the warning to Morales following discovery that he only spoke Spanish.

Morales contested his convictions for DUI and vehicular assault by means of driving a motor vehicle under the influence of intoxicating liquor and in a reckless manner. He did not contest the convictions for hit and run nor vehicular assault by means of disregard for the safety of others. He further argued that the State failed in proving that he had actually received the necessary warning regarding alcohol testing.

The court referenced State v. Turpin in explaining the important obligation the state has in preserving the “protection of the subject’s right to fundamental fairness” regarding implied consent. This case had a similar precedent in which a subject had not been informed of the blood testing until after the testing had been completed, nor was Turpin informed of her rights for additional testing per RCW 46.20.308.

The court found that the State was incapable of proving whether Morales had in fact been read the “308 rule.” The only proof in the affirmative was the Trooper’s testimony that the interpreter had told him he had informed Morales of the rule, which the court called “classic hearsay.”

The court reversed the convictions for DUI and vehicular assault by driving under the influence, while affirming the hit and run convictions, and put on remand further proceedings consistent with that opinion.

Justice Jim Johnson, in dissent, claimed that the state did meet the preponderance of evidence burden in proving that the 308 warning had been given. Further, he claimed that even if the burden was not met, admitting the test results was a “harmless error.”

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Today the Court will hear only three arguments, two in the morning and one in the afternoon. (Docket, briefs)

Morning session: (9:00 am)

Carlsen v. Global Client Solutions, No. 848556. Whether the respondent company violated Washington's consumer protection and debt adjustment laws. 

Global Client Solutions (GCS) contracts with numerous debt settlement companies to provide services to the companies' clients. GCS establishes special bank accounts that receive periodic payments from a clients' main bank accounts. GCS then uses the money to pay negotiated settlements with creditors. Several clients have brought a class action suit against GCS in Federal District Court. The clients claim that GCS has violated Washington's consumer protection and debt adjusting statutes.

The District Court certified four questions to the Washington Supreme Court: whether a company like GCS is engaged in “debt adjusting” under the statute; whether a “banking exclusion” applies; whether the statute's fee limitations apply, and whether there is a civil action for “aiding and abetting” a violation of the debt adjusting statute.

Phoenix Development, Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 842965. Whether the City of Woodinville properly denied a rezoning request.

Phoenix Development owned two pieces of property in Woodenville. The company requested a site-specific rezone of the properties from R-1 (allowing one dwelling per acre) to R-4 (allowing four dwellings per acre). The City Council denied the requested rezone.

Phoenix appealed the denial because it was not consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and zoning code. The City argues that the courts do not have jurisdiction to review the decision, and that a site-specific rezone decision does not need to comply with the Growth Management Act.

Afternoon session: (1:30 pm)

State v. Morales, No. 841977. Whether a blood test could be admitted as evidence if consent for it was obtained through an interpreter.

Jose Morales was stopped after a hit-and-run accident with another vehicle. He was arrested and blood-tested for alcohol. Before doing a blood test, police must inform a suspect of his right to an independent test. The officer was communicating through an interpreter, so he had the interpreter read a special notice form in Spanish. Morales signed the form.

At his trial, Morales moved to suppress evidence of the blood test. He argued that since the officer did not understand Spanish, and the interpreter was not called to testify, the State had not proven that Morales was informed of his right to an independent test. The appellate court ruled that the State had proven that Morales had been informed by a preponderance of the evidence, holding that the special notice “does not impose as demanding a burden of proof on the State as do the constitutional Miranda warnings.” The court also held that if there was an error, it was not prejudicial.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Supreme Court agreed to review several new cases during its July 6 conference.

• State v. Morales, No. 84197-7
• State v. Beadle, No. 84204-3
• State v. Russell, No. 84307-4
• Feil v. E. Wash. Growth Mgmt. Hearings Bd., No. 84369-4
• Moeller v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, No. 84500-0
• Phoenix Dev., Inc. v. City of Woodinville, No. 84296-5
• State v. R.P.H., No. 82557-2
• Mellish v. Frog Mountain Pet Care, Elyea & Jefferson County, No. 84246-9
• Mitch Dowler, et al. v. Clover Park School District No. 400, No. 84048-2

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link