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

In re Pers. Restraint of Mattson, No. 81324-8. In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Madsen, the Court determined that the state law which allows criminals to be released early under an approved "community custody plan" does not create a due process liberty interest. Therefore, a Department of Corrections policy that no sexually violent predators can be released early under a community custody plan does not violate due process.

Mark Mattson had been convicted of multiple sexual crimes and sentenced to ten years in prison. During the latter half of his imprisonment, Mattson submitted six different community custody plans for his early release. The final such plan was denied by the Department of Corrections on the basis that there was simply no plan that could ensure the safety of the community against sexually violent predators. A DOC psychiatrist had concluded that Mattson fell into this category, so the DOC did not review the merits of his proposed plan.

The Court of Appeals ruled for Mattson, holding that the statute setting up the community plan option created a due process right, so his plan had to be reviewed on its merits. Madsen's decision reverses the Court of Appeals.

Chief Justice Alexander dissented, agreeing with the Court of Appeals that Mattson's plan should have been reviewed on its merits, and not rejected simply due to a broad policy directive. Justices Sanders and Chambers joined him.

The decision is one of public interest only, as Mattson has already served his maximum sentence, and therefore the case is moot as it relates to his incarceration.

State v. Rivera-Santos, No. 81445-7. In a unanimous opinion written by Justice Fairhurst, the Court determined that the defendant, who drove under the influence of alcohol in both Washington and Oregon, could be convicted of a DUI in both states without violating his constitutional rights.

Rivera-Santos led police on a chase that started on the Washington side of I-5 and ended on the Oregon side. He was found to have a blood-alcohol content level of .17 percent, and convicted by an Oregon court of driving under the influence. He was also charged with a DUI in Clark County District Court, but Rivera-Santos argued that it should be dismissed under the constitutional protections against double-jeopardy (i.e. being punished twice for the same crime.

Fairhurst wrote that convicted Rivera-Santos in Washington would not be double-jeopardy, as it was a separate crime. He drove while drunk in Oregon, and was punished for that by an Oregon court. He also drove while drunk in Washington, and a Washington court could punish him for that separate crime.

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

In re Larry Botimer, No. 200,625-6 (briefs and argument). This case concerns a decision by the Washington State Bar to suspend Botimer's license to practice law. The suspension was based upon findings by the Bar that Botimer violated conflict of interest rules, disclosed client confidences and disclosed that a tax return he prepared for a client was discovered later to be fraudulent.

In re PRP of Mattson, No. 81324-8 (briefs and argument). The question is whether the Department of Corrections may refuse to consider the community custody transition plan of a sex offender who has been found, after an evaluation, to meet the criteria for commitment as a sexually violent predator. Mattson argues his right to release to community under terms of the early release statute, while DOC says Mattson’s plan was properly denied under statute.

Morgan v. Federal Way, et al., No. 81556-9 (briefs and argument). The City of Federal Way hired attorney Amy Stephson to investigate a complaint of a hostile work environment at the municipal court. The News Tribune requested a copy of the report under the Public Records Act, and Judge Michael Morgan, the subject of the complaint, filed a petition to prevent its disclosure. He argued that it was protected by the work product and attorney-client privilege exemptions to the Act, and by a general “separation of powers” that prevents the Act from being applied to judicial documents. The Supreme Court has already ordered the release of the Stephson report. The opinion issued tomorrow will provide the rationale for releasing the document.

State v. Rivera-Santos, No. 81445-7 (briefs and argument). This case arises from an appeal to a Clark County Superior Court decision. The defendant was observed driving under the influence of alcohol in Clark County, and a police chase ensued that didn't end until Oregon officers stopped him in Portland. Rivera-Santos was convicted of a DUI in Oregon, and the question before the court is whether the defendant's constitutional right against double jeopardy prevents him from being convicted for the same crime in Washington state. The trial court believed it was double jeopardy, and dismissed the case, the superior court disagreed. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, asking for review as a matter of great public interest.

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

Today the Court will hear argument on four cases on the topics of... (Docket, case briefs)

During the morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hear:

In re the Detention of Bryan Duncan, No. 81230-6. This case is on appeal from Division Three Court of Appeals, and originated in Benton County Superior Court when the state filed a request to civilly commit Duncan as a sexually violent predator. Three questions are on appeal to the Supreme Court.

First, did the trial court err when it allowed evidence to be presented that Duncan had refused a pre-trial mental examination? Second, did it err by allowing into evidence Duncan's plan to live with a convicted sex offender after being released from prison, but not allowing Duncan to explain that the potential roommate hadn't re-offended since getting out of detention? Third, did the court err by refusing to allow Duncan to provide evidence about the effectiveness of the sex offender treatment program at the Special Commitment Center on McNeil Island?

Bianca Faust, et al. v. Mark Albertson, et al. No. 81356-6. Faust appealed this case after the Division One Court of Appeals overturned a jury award of $14 million for the injuries she and her family sustained after being hit by a drunk driver. She had sued the bar the driver had been drinking at before the crash for "negligent overservice" of alcohol to the driver after he was already drunk. The dispute in the case is over the type and level of evidence needed to establish that the establishment's bartenders negligently continued to serve drinks to someone who was visibly intoxicated. Both the WA Association for Justice Foundation (formerly the Trial Lawyers Association) and Mothers Against Drunk Driving filed amicus briefs in the case.

During the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hear:

State v. Eriksen, No. 80653-5.This case originated in Whatcom County District Court, and concerns whether tribal law enforcement officers have authority to pursue motorists beyond the limits of tribal lands after having observed them commit a traffic infraction on the reservation. Ms. Eriksen was pursued by a tribal police officer for a suspected DUI while on Lummi Reservation in Whatcom County, but the officer didn't actually stop her until they were outside the boundaries of the reservation. Eriksen was convicted for a DUI, and challenged the legality of the stop by the tribal officer.

State v. Rivera-Santos, No. 81445-7. This case arises from an appeal to a Clark County Superior Court decision. The defendant was observed driving under the influence of alcohol in Clark County, and a police chase ensued that didn't end until Oregon officers stopped him in Portland. Rivera-Santos was convicted of a DUI in Oregon, and the question before the court is whether the defendant's constitutional right against double jeopardy prevents him from being convicted for the same crime in Washington state. The trial court believed it was double jeopardy, and dismissed the case, the superior court disagreed. The defendant appealed directly to the Supreme Court, asking for review as a matter of great public interest.

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