Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Renton police and SWAT officers executed a search warrant at the apartment where Cristian Magaña Arévalo was staying with his family, seeking evidence related to the murder of Jason Hobbs. Officers ordered everyone out using a bullhorn, separated Magaña Arévalo from his family, restrained him with zip ties, and placed him in a patrol car before transporting him to a nearby parking lot. There, he was transferred to an officer’s work truck and questioned about Hobbs’s murder without receiving Miranda warnings. The officer told him he was “not under arrest” and asked if he would talk, which Magaña Arévalo agreed to. Two days later, he was interviewed again in a noncustodial setting, also without Miranda warnings.In King County Superior Court, Magaña Arévalo moved to suppress both statements, arguing the first was obtained during a custodial interrogation without Miranda warnings and the second was tainted by the initial violation. The court held a CrR 3.5 hearing and ruled both statements admissible, finding neither interrogation custodial or coerced. The jury convicted Magaña Arévalo of first degree murder, and the court sentenced him to prison. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals found the December 1 interrogation was custodial and that admitting the statement was error, but held the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because of other strong evidence, including the December 3 statement and physical evidence.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed both parties’ petitions. It held that considering the totality of the circumstances—including restraints, isolation, police presence, and ethnicity—Magaña Arévalo was in custody during the December 1 interrogation, and admitting his statement without Miranda warnings violated his constitutional rights. However, the court found the December 3 statement was voluntary, noncustodial, and not tainted by the earlier violation. Applying a clarified harmless error standard, the court affirmed the Court of Appeals, holding the constitutional error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. View "State v. Magana-Arevalo" on Justia Law

Anthony Lee was accused of assaulting Amy Groff at his home near Sequim, Washington. After an evening spent together, Lee became angry with Groff, allegedly due to her drug use, theft, and verbal abuse. When they returned home, Lee reportedly fired a gun in the air, struck Groff in the head with the gun, pushed her out of his truck, kicked and hit her, and then shot at her as she ran away. Groff was later found by police with visible injuries and recounted the assault to officers.Lee was charged in the Clallam County Superior Court with two counts of second degree assault with a deadly weapon, each based on separate alleged acts: one for beating Groff with the gun and another for shooting at her. At trial, the judge admitted Groff’s statements to police under the excited utterance exception to hearsay, and instructed the jury not to consider any judicial comments as opinions on the evidence. The jury found Lee guilty on both counts, and the trial court determined the assaults were distinct acts, rejecting Lee’s double jeopardy argument. Lee appealed, raising the double jeopardy issue and, for the first time, challenging the trial judge’s comment on the evidence. The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed both convictions, finding no double jeopardy violation and no manifest constitutional error regarding the judicial comment.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and held that, under the unit of prosecution analysis and considering all relevant factors, Lee’s assaultive acts constituted a single course of conduct. Therefore, two convictions for second degree assault violated double jeopardy principles. The court reversed on that issue, ordering one conviction and its firearm enhancement to be vacated. On the comment on the evidence issue, the court affirmed, finding no manifest constitutional error that would permit review for the first time on appeal. View "State v. Lee" on Justia Law

On the evening of April 12, 2022, Ralph Kinerson was stabbed following a physical altercation at his home. Both Kinerson and Barclay Dylan Bennett testified that they fought that night, but their accounts differed regarding the circumstances and who initiated the violence. Kinerson claimed Bennett attacked him at his home, while Bennett asserted that Kinerson assaulted him in the street, aided by others, and denied stabbing Kinerson. The police interviewed witnesses, including Kinerson’s neighbor and Kinerson’s daughter, Malea, whose statements became central to the subsequent trial.During trial in the Spokane County Superior Court, Bennett was charged with first degree assault. Bennett’s defense focused on alleged deficiencies in the police investigation, suggesting that officers failed to consider other suspects. On cross-examination, Bennett introduced portions of Malea’s interview with a detective to support this theory, referencing statements about another woman, Abbey Pearson, possibly stealing from Kinerson. In response, the State introduced another part of Malea’s interview, which suggested Bennett had a motive to attack Kinerson due to his relationship with Kinerson’s friend, Roberts. Bennett objected on hearsay and Sixth Amendment grounds, arguing he could not confront Malea, who was unavailable to testify. The trial court overruled the objection, finding Bennett had “opened the door” to the evidence.The Washington Court of Appeals affirmed Bennett’s conviction, concluding that any error in admitting the hearsay was invited by Bennett’s own actions and precluded review, even for constitutional claims. The Supreme Court of the State of Washington affirmed the appellate decision, holding that the statement’s admission was justified under the rule of completeness (ER 106). The Court found the statement was not offered for its truth but to contextualize the investigation, so it did not trigger the confrontation clause. Bennett’s conviction was upheld. View "State v. Bennett" on Justia Law

Two individuals each pleaded guilty in separate cases to unlawful possession of controlled substances in Washington State. As part of their sentences, both were required to pay legal financial obligations (LFOs), which they partially satisfied through cash payments and through performing community service. Years later, following the Washington Supreme Court’s invalidation of the simple drug possession statute in State v. Blake, both individuals successfully moved to vacate their convictions and sought reimbursement for both the cash paid and the labor performed in community service that had satisfied portions of their LFOs.The trial courts vacated their convictions and reimbursed the cash payments but declined to reimburse for the value of the community service hours. Both individuals appealed. The Washington State Court of Appeals affirmed the trial courts’ decisions, holding that there was no substantive due process right to monetary reimbursement for community service work performed in lieu of LFO payments and that equal protection was not violated. The appellate court found that the appellants had not shown they were treated disparately from similarly situated individuals based on economic status, and even if there was disparate treatment, the decision to not reimburse for community service hours was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the consolidated appeals. The court held that there is no constitutional right—fundamental or otherwise—to reimbursement for community service work performed in satisfaction of court-imposed financial obligations when convictions are later invalidated. The court found no disparate treatment based on economic status and therefore no actionable equal protection claim. The decision of the Court of Appeals and the trial courts was affirmed. View "State v. Danielson" on Justia Law

A petitioner sought to file a referendum challenging a specific section of a recently enacted state law concerning student and parental rights in public education. The law included provisions aimed at promoting student safety, preventing discrimination, and ensuring parental notification in certain circumstances. The legislature included an emergency clause in the bill, declaring it necessary for the immediate preservation of public peace, health, or safety, which made the law effective immediately. When the petitioner submitted the referendum to the Secretary of State, the Secretary refused to process it, citing the emergency clause as rendering the legislation exempt from the referendum process under the state constitution.After the Secretary’s refusal, the petitioner filed an original action in the Supreme Court of the State of Washington, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary to process the referendum and to challenge the validity of the emergency clause. The court granted expedited review due to the time-sensitive nature of referendum signature collection. The petitioner argued that the Secretary had a mandatory duty to process all properly filed referenda, regardless of the presence of an emergency clause, and that the validity of such a clause was a judicial question.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that the Secretary of State does not have a mandatory duty to process a referendum on legislation that is, on its face, constitutionally exempt from referendum due to a valid emergency clause. The court further found that the legislature’s declaration of emergency in this case was valid, as the record and legislative history supported the need for immediate action. As a result, the petition for a writ of mandamus was denied. View "Eyman v. Hobbs" on Justia Law

In 1985, a 20-year-old individual committed a burglary that resulted in the fatal stabbing of a 14-year-old boy. The following year, a jury convicted him of aggravated first degree murder. At that time, Washington law required a mandatory sentence of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for such a conviction, and the sentencing judge stated he had no discretion to impose any other sentence. The individual has been incarcerated for nearly 40 years under this sentence.After his conviction and sentence were affirmed by the Washington Court of Appeals in 1988, the petitioner sought resentencing in 2023, arguing that recent Washington Supreme Court decisions—specifically In re Personal Restraint of Monschke and State v. Carter—rendered his mandatory LWOP sentence unconstitutional. The King County Superior Court transferred his motion to the Court of Appeals, which then certified the case for direct review by the Washington Supreme Court.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington held that its decision in Monschke constituted a significant change in the law, exempting the petitioner’s claim from the one-year time bar for collateral relief. The court found that mandatory LWOP sentences for individuals aged 18 to 20 at the time of their offense, imposed without consideration of youth as a mitigating factor, are unconstitutional under the state constitution’s prohibition on cruel punishment. The court further held that a petitioner in this situation demonstrates actual and substantial prejudice if Monschke is material to their sentence. The court granted the personal restraint petition and remanded the case to the trial court for a new sentencing hearing. View "In re Personal Restraint of Schoenhals" on Justia Law

Kyle Evans was charged with felony possession of a stolen vehicle in January 2024. He was not arrested but was summoned to appear for arraignment, where he pleaded not guilty and was released on personal recognizance with certain conditions. The State sought to administratively book Evans to collect his fingerprints and other identifying information, which involved patting down, handcuffing, and detaining him in a jail cell. Evans challenged this process, arguing it violated his constitutional rights under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.In the King County Superior Court, Judge Johanna Bender ruled in favor of Evans, finding that the administrative booking process violated his rights by intruding on his private affairs without the necessary authority of law. Judge Bender allowed the State to collect Evans' fingerprints but prohibited the use of handcuffs, pat-downs, and detention in a cell. This decision conflicted with a ruling by Judge Melinda Young in a similar case, where the process was deemed constitutional under the Fourth Amendment.The Supreme Court of the State of Washington reviewed the case and held that King County's administrative booking process violated article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution. The court found that the process intruded on the private affairs of pretrial releasees and that the State failed to justify this intrusion with the necessary authority of law. The court emphasized that pretrial releasees do not have diminished privacy rights simply because they have been accused of a crime. The court affirmed the trial court's order and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "State v. Evans" on Justia Law

The case involves a post-dismissal challenge to a trial court’s order that permanently sealed the petitioners’ actual names and allowed them to be identified by pseudonyms in court records. The petitioners, identified as John Does P, Q, R, and S, sought to prevent Thurston County from releasing unredacted sex offender records in response to a Public Records Act (PRA) request by Donna Zink. The trial court granted the Does’ motion for voluntary dismissal and entered a permanent order to maintain the use of pseudonyms and seal a court record listing their actual names.The trial court initially allowed the Does to proceed in pseudonym to preserve their ability to seek relief in their PRA injunction action. However, over the course of the litigation, nearly all of the Does’ PRA exemption claims were rejected, and Zink received most of the records she requested. The trial court’s preliminary orders allowing pseudonyms were based on the potential harm of being identified as sex offenders. On remand, the trial court granted the Does’ motion for voluntary dismissal and permanently sealed their names, citing compelling privacy and safety concerns.The Washington Supreme Court reviewed the case and held that the trial court abused its discretion in permanently sealing the Disclosure Document and allowing the Does to remain in pseudonym. The court found that the trial court’s findings were insufficient to satisfy GR 15 or the Ishikawa factors, which require specific and compelling reasons to restrict public access to court records. The court noted that the Does’ identities as sex offenders were already publicly available, and the trial court’s order did not articulate new compelling privacy or safety concerns. The Supreme Court remanded the case with instructions to unseal the Disclosure Document, use the Does’ actual names in future proceedings, and replace the pseudonyms in court records with their actual names. View "Doe P v. Thurston County" on Justia Law

Samantha Hall-Haught was involved in a head-on collision, leading to the discovery of drug paraphernalia in her vehicle. At the hospital, a state trooper observed signs of drug use and obtained a warrant to test her blood, which revealed the presence of THC. Hall-Haught was charged with vehicular assault, and at her trial, a lab supervisor testified about the blood test results instead of the technician who conducted the test. Hall-Haught objected, arguing that her right to confront the witness against her was violated.The trial court admitted the lab results, and Hall-Haught was convicted. She appealed, and the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, reasoning that the supervisor's independent review and testimony did not violate the confrontation clause. The court relied on the precedent set in State v. Lui, which allowed expert witnesses to testify based on data prepared by others.The Supreme Court of Washington reviewed the case and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision. The court held that the confrontation clause was violated because the lab report was testimonial, and the technician who performed the test was the actual witness against Hall-Haught. The court emphasized that the supervisor's testimony, which relied on the technician's report, was admitted for its truth, thus implicating the confrontation clause. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "State v. Hall-Haught" on Justia Law

In 2022, the Washington State Legislature enacted ESSB 5078, which prohibits the manufacture, distribution, importation, and sale of firearm magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. Gator’s Custom Guns Inc. continued to sell these large capacity magazines (LCMs) after the law went into effect. The Washington attorney general issued a civil investigative demand, and Gator’s filed a petition to set aside the demand, claiming ESSB 5078 violated the right to bear arms under the Washington Constitution and the Second Amendment. The State also filed a Consumer Protection Act enforcement action against Gator’s, and the cases were consolidated.The Cowlitz County Superior Court granted summary judgment in favor of Gator’s, finding ESSB 5078 unconstitutional under both the Washington Constitution and the Second Amendment. The State sought direct review by the Washington Supreme Court, which stayed the superior court’s ruling pending review.The Washington Supreme Court held that ESSB 5078 does not violate either the Washington or United States constitutional protections of the right to bear arms. The court determined that LCMs are not “arms” within the meaning of either constitutional provision and that the right to purchase LCMs is not necessary to the core right to possess a firearm for self-defense. Consequently, the court reversed the superior court’s ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The court also denied the State’s request for reassignment to another superior court. View "State v. Gator's Custom Guns, Inc." on Justia Law