This month we cover public access to criminal defense billing records, warrantless searches of locked vehicles, and the court’s opinion on whether minors have a constitutional right to possess guns.
Supreme Court of Washington Podcast - Does Sieyes matter?
An interesting little subplot played out in today’s Sieyes opinions. As discussed below, the basic question was whether the state law that prohibits minors from possessing guns is unconstitutional.
Justice Jim Johnson, in his one-vote dissent, wrote that the gun possession statute should be subjected to strict scrutiny—the highest standard of judicial review. In other words, the State would be required to show that the statute restricting a 17-year-old from possessing a gun is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling governmental interest. He stressed the “fundamental nature of the right to keep and bear arms throughout our nation’s history and our legacy of extending that right to young people.” Using this analysis, Justice Johnson would have invalidated the law.
Justice Sanders’ majority opinion, however, does not go so far. Writing for the Court, he held that the Second Amendment is incorporated against the states via the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Washington Constitution explicitly protects the individual right to bear arms. Justice Sanders also discussed the appropriate standard of review, and declined to apply strict scrutiny or a less stringent analysis. But Justice Sanders noted that the Mr. Sieyes provided no argument or authority for finding the state’s gun restriction unconstitutional. Without adequate briefing from the parties, the Court declined to address the issue. Justice Sanders seemed to chide Justice Johnson for a lack of restraint: “The argument put forth by the dissent is no substitute for an argument briefed by opposing parties.”
Justice Debra Stephens takes the restraint refrain even further. While agreeing with the case's outcome, she wrote separately to criticize the majority opinion’s lengthy analysis of the constitutional issues at stake. “I would refrain from engaging in an extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment. Restraint is particularly appropriate here because the very question is currently pending before the United States Supreme Court.”
But Chief Justice Barbara Madsen plays the restraint trump card. She signed the majority opinion and added the notation “result only” to her vote. So while we see her position we have no clue as to her rationale.
The Supreme Court has issued its opinion in the thorny case of State v. Sieyes, No. 82154-2.
17-year-old Christopher Sieyes was charged and convicted for unlawfully possessing a loaded .380 semiautomatic handgun – a violation of RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii), which generally prohibits children under age 18 from possessing firearms. The questions in this case were whether the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to the states, and if so, whether the state law banning possession by minors unconstitutionally infringes on the right to bear arms protected under the U.S. and Washington Constitutions.
In 2007, in Heller v. D.C., the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, holding that the Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to bear arms, rather than a collective militia right, as argued by D.C. The Court left for another day the question of whether the Second Amendment applies to the states. That question will be addressed later this year, as there has been some disagreement between federal circuits, but the Washington Supreme Court beat SCOTUS to the punch.
The Washington Supreme Court, with Justice Richard Sanders writing the majority, held that the Second Amendment applies to the states. “[T]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms from state interference through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This right is necessary to an Anglo-American regime of ordered liberty and fundamental to the American scheme of justice.” Justice Sanders also noted that the Washington Constitution explicitly guarantees the right to bear arms, though the Court has not determined the reach of Article I, Sec. 24 since the Heller ruling.
Turning to the question of whether RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) is constitutional, the Court declined to apply the traditional levels of scrutiny to firearm regulation. The Court voiced agreement with Heller -- that strict scrutiny would invalidate most infringements on the Second Amendment, while a rational basis test would set too low a standard to protect the right to bear arms. “We follow Heller in declining to analyze RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii) under any level of scrutiny. Instead we look to the Second Amendment's original meaning, the traditional understanding of the right, and the burden imposed on children by upholding the statute.” Justice Sanders acknowledged the Court's "occasional rhetoric" about the "reasonable regulation" of firearms, but argued the Court has never settled on a precise standard of review.
However, the Court found that Christopher Sieyes made inadequate arguments on whether the law was unconstitutional. “In sum appellant offers no convincing authority supporting his argument that Washington's limit on childhood firearm possession violates the United States or Washington Constitutions. Accordingly we keep our powder dry on this issue for another day.” The Supreme Court held that Sieyes failed to demonstrate that the statute was an unconstitutional violation of his right to possess a gun. The case was remanded for consideration of additional issues.
Gun rights advocates will see this as a partial missed opportunity. After the landmark ruling in Heller, the Washington Supreme Court asked the parties in Sieyes to address whether the Second Amendment applies to the states and the appropriate standard of scrutiny for evaluating firearm regulations. Justice Sanders has long railed against the Court’s reliance on “reasonable regulation” of gun rights, and no doubt wanted to go further in clarifying the court’s jurisprudence. Thus his criticisms of the appellant for inadequately briefing some of these constitutional issues. Even so, the Court firmly holds that the Washington Constitution protects the individual right to bear arms.
Justice Debra Stephens concurred in the result, but wrote that as Sieyes failed to analyze how the state statute violated the constitution the court could stop there and should not have conducted an "extended exploration of the unsettled question of federal incorporation of the Second Amendment." Meanwhile, Justice James Johnson dissented, writing that "the majority disregards our long-standing national tradition allowing younger citizens to bear arms," and he argued strict scrutiny is the appropriate standard of review for a challenge to a statute restricting one's constitutional rights.
The Supreme Court will issue opinions in two cases tomorrow, including a case that addresses whether minors have a constitutional right to possess firearms.
State v. Sieyes, No. 82154-2 (briefs and argument). Christopher Sieyes, a 17-year-old, was pulled over for speeding, and a gun was found under the front seat of his car. State law prohibits minors from possessing guns (with limited exceptions) and Sieyes was charged and convicted of criminal possession of a firearm. The question before the Supreme Court is whether the state statute prohibiting minors from possessing guns is a violation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms guaranteed in the Washington and U.S. Constitutions. More broadly, the Court may consider the proper test for analyzing a violation of the right to bear arms, and whether the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to states.
State v. Gonzalez, No. 26070-4 (briefs and argument). In 2003 Robert Gonzalez attacked a man with a metal bar, seriously injured the man, and robbed him of his vehicle. As part of a judgment and sentence, Robert Gonzalez was ordered to pay $20,886 in restitution in June 2004. In June 2006, the prosecutor moved for further restitution in the amount of $25,561 to cover additional medical bills, paid from the crime victims fund. The question before the Court is whether state statutes allow a restitution order to be amended beyond the statutory period, whether under the state and federal constitutions a restitution order is by nature a criminal "punishment," and if it is, whether the amended order constitutes two separate punishments.
On this podcast we discuss education funding litigation, whether court administrative records should be public, and gun-toting minors.
Supreme Court of Washington Podcast (RSS) - Court records & minors with guns.
Argument recap: State v. Sieyes, No. 82154-2.
A fascinating gun rights case was argued today before the Supreme Court of Washington involving a tangle of state and federal issues. In 2007, Christopher Sieyes, a 17 year old, was charged and convicted with unlawful possession of a firearm. State law (RCW 9.41.040(2)(a)(iii)) prohibits minors from possessing firearms (with certain exceptions). While the case was on appeal to the Court of Appeals (Div. II), the U.S. Supreme Court issued its landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, striking down D.C.’s handgun prohibition. The Court of Appeals asked the litigants in Sieyes to supply additional briefing to address Heller, and then the court transferred the case to the state Supreme Court.
One of the major unanswered questions in Heller is relevant here—whether the Second Amendment applies to states. Since Heller, several federal circuits have ruled on this issue. The Second and Seventh Circuits have said the Second Amendment does not apply against individual states, while the Ninth Circuit says it does. This circuit split (plus the specific issue involved) all but guarantees that the U.S. Supreme Court will address this issue its next term.
Additionally, there’s the question of the Washington Constitution, which says, “The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired . . . .” (Art. I, Sec. 24). In the past the state Supreme Court has upheld “reasonable regulation” of this right, generally upholding restrictions that are necessary to uphold public safety, health, and general welfare. The question today is whether, in light of Heller’s endorsement of the individual right to bear arms, the Supreme Court should apply a stricter standard of review to any regulations that impair gun rights. (More after the jump.)
Thomas E. Weaver argued for Mr. Sieyes, and he suggested that the court could avoid the constitutional question by simply determining that the conviction for possession was not supported by sufficient evidence. Given the court’s questions for the next hour, this doesn’t appear likely. (Justice Owens certainly held this view, saying: “I don’t know how you can avoid [the constitutional issue] in this case, really.”) Justice Charles Johnson suggested that an unconstitutional search perhaps occurred, though this issue was not raised by the parties. Justice Sanders inquired about the appropriate test for determining the constitutionality of the statute, asking, for example, whether it would be constitutional to prohibit a 3-year-old from possessing a gun.
The Washington Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed an amicus curiae brief in this case, and the association’s attorney, Neil M. Fox, was permitted argument time, which is very rare for amicus parties. Mr. Fox argued that the Second Amendment applies to the states, submitting as supporting evidence Attorney General Rob McKenna’s amicus brief in Heller which advanced this argument. Mr. Fox also argued that strict scrutiny should apply to any restrictions on firearm possession or ownership. (Strict scrutiny mandates that a law cannot survive unless it advances a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to accomplish its purposes.)
Todd Dowell of the Kitsap County Prosecutor’s Office represented the state. Given the State of Washington’s brief in Heller, Chief Justice Alexander asked Mr. Dowell about the state’s position today on whether the Second Amendment applies to the state. Despite several repetitions of the question Mr. Dowell declined to embrace or reject this position.
Today the Court will hear just three opinions, two in the morning and one in the afternoon. Two of the cases involve criminal procedure questions, and one is about whether a juvenile has the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. (Docket, case briefs)
In the morning session, starting at 9:00 a.m., the Court will hear:
Seattle v. Winebrenner/Seattle v. Quezada, No. 81279-9. These consolidated cases are up on appeal from Division One Court of Appeals, and concern the question of whether current law allows DUI sentences to be increased based on multiple offenses committed within seven years of the present offense, or just those committed in the prior seven years. Both Winebrenner and Quezada had multiple DUI incidents within a seven year period, and their level of sentencing depends on how the law requiring increased sentences for "prior offenses within seven years" is applied.
State v. Christopher Sieyes, No. 82154-2. This case is on appeal from Division Two Court of Appeals, and arose out of Kitsap County Superior Court. Argument will be on the question of whether the Washington law prohibiting minors from possessing guns (with various exceptions) is a violation of the state and federal constitutional rights to keep and bear arms.
Mr. Sieyes was pulled over for speeding, and found to have a gun under the front seat of his car. Being only 17-years-old at the time, Sieyes was charged and convicted of criminal possession of a firearm.
The Wa Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers filed an amicus brief in this case asking the Court to find that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution applies to states via the Fourteenth Amendment.
In the afternoon session, starting at 1:30 p.m., the Court will hear:
State v. Jacob Gamble, No. 80131-2. This case is on appeal from Second Division Court of Appeals, and was consolidated with four other cases with a similar question. Defendant Gamble hosted a party for his high school friends, during which a fight broke out. During the fight Gamble struck one of the other kids, who later died as a result of his injuries. Gamble was convicted of first degree felony murder and second degree murder, both of which were later reversed. The state then filed a charge against Gamble for first degree manslaughter.
The question before the Court is whether allowing the state to file manslaughter charges after the murder convictions had been reversed violates the mandatory joinder rule (which requires that related offenses be tried together) and/or Gamble's double jeopardy rights.
Enter keywords:
Add this blog to your feeds or put your e-mail in the box below and hit GO to subscribe by e-mail.
