Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Michael Reynolds Jr. received a mandatory sentence of life in prison without possibility of parole for a crime he committed at age 33. The events triggering that sentence, though, were his two “strikes” under Washington’s “three strikes” law—one of which Reynolds committed at age 17, when he was a juvenile. If Reynolds’ current sentence constituted punishment for his earlier offense committed at age 17, then it would be unconstitutional under case law. But under the Washington Supreme Court’s more recent precedent, his current sentence did not constitute punishment for that prior offense. In Washington v. Moretti, decided two years after Bassett, the Supreme Court held that a “three strikes” sentence of mandatory life in prison without possibility of parole constituted punishment for the last crime or third “strike,” not the earlier first or second “strikes.” “And for years, we have held that our state’s ‘three strikes’ law as applied to adults does not violate article I, section 14.2 That assessment could certainly change over time. But in this case, the parties have not asked us to overrule it.” The Court therefore affirmed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Reynolds" on Justia Law

Following waves of protests across the country calling for racial justice and reform of police practices, the Washington Legislature enacted several statutes in 2021 establishing requirements for tactics and equipment used by peace officers. This case concerned article XI, section 5 of the Washington Constitution and the constitutionality of RCW 10.116.030(3)(a), which required sheriffs of non charter counties receive authorization from the chair of the board of county commissioners prior to deploying tear gas in response to a riot. The trial court on motion for summary judgment, held that the statute violated article XI, section 5 by interfering with the sheriff’s core functions. Finding no reversible error in that judgment, the Washington Supreme Court affirmed. View "Snaza v. Washington" on Justia Law

In this action, the Wahkiakum School District (WSD) alleged the State of Washington “fail[ed] to amply fund the [WSD]’s needed facilities [and] infrastructure.” WSD argued that this failure violated the Washington Constitution, article IX, section 1. The complaint explained the impact of this lack of ample funding for facilities and infrastructure: “The [WSD] is a poor, rural school district located along the banks of the Columbia River. It has less than 500 students. Approximately 57% of its students are low income. It has less than 3500 registered voters. And the per capita income of its voters is approximately $29,000.” Specifically, the WSD requested that the State pay the cost of rebuilding its elementary, middle, and high schools; it estimated more than $50 million in construction costs. The State moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim (CR 12(b)(6)) and for lack of jurisdiction (CR 12(b)(1)). In support of its motion, the State argued, “[F]unding for school construction and other capital expenditures is governed by entirely different constitutional and statutory provisions that primarily look to local school districts themselves, with the State providing funding assistance. As such, WSD fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted . . . .” It also argued that the court could not award monetary damages because the legislature has not created a private right of action and monetary damages would violate separation of powers principles. The WSD conceded that it failed to file a tort claim form and thus that its claim for monetary damages was barred. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice. After review, the Washington Supreme Court concluded the constitution did not include capital construction costs within the category of “education” costs for which the State alone must make “ample provision.” The Court thus affirmed the trial court's decision to grant the motion to dismiss. View "Wahkiakum Sch. Dist. No. 200 v. Washington" on Justia Law

Dahndre Westwood entered A.B.’s house around 4:30 a.m. A.B. saw Westwood standing in her hallway and holding a knife in his hand. Westwood told her to get undressed and threatened to kill her if she did not cooperate. A.B. screamed for help and pleaded for her life; she clawed at Westwood and knocked the knife out of his hand. During the struggle, Westwood nicked A.B. with the knife, leaving a scar on her cheek. Westwood choked and suffocated A.B. to muffle her screams for help and hit her repeatedly on the head. Several cars passed A.B.’s house while this transpired, and the headlights shone in the window. Westwood stopped his assault after the second or third set of headlights passed. He threatened A.B. that if she told anyone about the assault he would come back to kill her. Westwood then ran into the living room and out the front door. A.B. called 911 and was taken to the hospital by first responders shortly after. A jury convicted Westwood of attempted rape in the first degree, assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and burglary in the first degree. At sentencing, Westwood argued that his convictions encompassed the same criminal conduct for scoring purposes. The State disagreed and asked the court to apply the analysis from Washington v. Chenoweth, 370 P.3d 6 (2016). The trial court determined that the three convictions did not constitute the same criminal conduct because each of the crimes required a different statutory intent. Westwood appealed, arguing that Washington v. Dunaway, 743 P.2d 1237, 749 P.2d 160 (1987) controlled. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the trial court for determination of whether the convictions encompassed the same criminal conduct under the analysis of Dunaway. Some lower courts found conflict between the analysis in Dunaway and that in Chenoweth. The Washington Supreme Court took the opportunity to provide guidance on the relationship between these cases and found no conflict existed. Here, the objective statutory intent analysis was the proper test. The Court affirmed the sentencing court’s decision and reversed the Court of Appeals. View "Washington v. Westwood" on Justia Law

Petitioner the Freedom Foundation requested the identities and workplace contact information for Washington state public employees. To prevent disclosure of this information, affected employees sought declaratory and injunctive relief through the Washington State Federation of State Employees and other labor unions (Unions). The Unions alleged their members, who were victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse, stalking, and harassment, possessed a constitutional liberty interest in personal security that the government would violate by releasing the requested information. The courts below agreed. On appeal, the Foundation argued no such fundamental right existed, the Unions lacked standing, and the Unions failed to bring justiciable claims. During the course of this case, the Washington State Legislature enacted a law exempting the requested information from disclosure under the Public Records Act (PRA), ch. 42.56 RCW. The Washington Supreme Court held the Unions had standing and brought justiciable claims on behalf of their members. However, the Unions did not demonstrate particularized harm to affected public employees; therefore, they did not satisfy the PRA injunction standard. The Court thus affirmed the Court of Appeals on these grounds. The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals’ ruling on declaratory relief because this matter could be resolved on nonconstitutional grounds. Accordingly, the Court remanded this case to the superior court to apply the new statutory exemption. View "Wash. Fed'n of State Emps., Council 28, v. State" on Justia Law

Respondent Peter Ansell was serving an indeterminate life sentence in community custody. The Indeterminate Sentencing Review Board (ISRB) sought review of a Court of Appeals decision invalidating certain community custody conditions. After review, the Washington Supreme Court concluded the conditions relating to sexually explicit materials, dating, and relationships were not unconstitutionally vague. However, the Court determined the ISRB exceeded its authority in imposing the cannabis condition, to which the ISRB conceded was not related to Ansell’s crimes. View "In re Pers. Restraint of Ansell" on Justia Law

Petitioner Paul Rivers, a Black man, was convicted on two criminal charges in King County, Washington by a jury drawn from a panel that lacked any Black potential jurors. Rivers argued this venire, as well as certain aspects of the King County jury selection system that produced this venire, violated his state and federal fair cross section rights. “No one in this case disputes that jury diversity is lacking in Washington and that more can and must be done to promote juror diversity statewide.” Because Rivers did not show that the Washington Constitution required the heightened test he proposed for assessing fair cross section claims, the Court analyzed his claim using the existing Sixth Amendment framework, and that Rivers’ venire and King County’s jury selection system satisfied constitutional minimums. The case was remanded for resentencing, because the Court found Rivers was entitled to the benefit of RCW 9.94A.647, which no longer allowed a persistent offender life sentence based on prior second-degree robbery convictions. View "Washington v. Rivers" on Justia Law

In 1993, respondents Brock and Diane Maslonka purchased land bordering the Pend Oreille River. A dam had been constructed on the river in 1955. The previous owners informed the Maslonkas that the land occasionally flooded. In 2016, the Maslonka sued the Pend Oreille Public Utility District (PUD), alleging its operation of the dam entitled them to damages based on inverse condemnation, trespass, nuisance and negligence. The trial court found the subsequent purchaser rule barred the inverse condemnation claim, and the PUD established a prescriptive easement barring the trespass and nuisance claims. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding the PUD could not benefit from the subsequent purchaser rule because it failed to prove its conduct constituted a taking prior ro the Maslonkas’ purchase. The Washington Supreme Court held that an inverse condemnation claimant must show the subsequent purchaser rule does not bar their suit. Further, an inverse condemnation claimant barred by the subsequent purchaser rule has no viable tort claim if the tort is based ont he’s same government conduct. The Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court to reinstate its summary judgment orders. View "Maslonka v. Pub. Util. Dist. No. 1 of Pend Oreille County" on Justia Law

DH was taken into emergency custody on an involuntary 72-hour hold as authorized by former RCW 71.05.153(1) (2019). Instead of filing for a 14-day commitment court order, the State let the 72-hour hold expire and did not release DH, although he had been asking to leave for days. The State kept him detained overnight and evaluated him again the next morning for a new 72-hour hold and filed a petition for a 14-day commitment. At DH’s subsequent 14-day hold hearing, he argued that he was entitled to dismissal because the State had totally disregarded the requirements of the ITA. The court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the new 14-day petition. The Washington Supreme Court held that when the State totally disregards the requirements of the ITA by holding someone despite lacking the authority under the ITA to do so, the ITA petition shall be dismissed. in this case, the State totally disregarded the requirements of the ITA when it failed to release DH at the end of the 72-hour period as mandated by statute. The trial court abused its discretion when it did not so hold and did not dismiss the new petition. Accordingly, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial court for dismissal of the petition and any further proceedings. The Court also granted review of whether failure to inform a committed person about a loss of firearm rights for involuntary treatment constituted a “manifest error affecting a constitutional right” such that the Court should review the unpreserved issue under RAP 2.5(a)(3). Given its resolution of dismissal of the petition the Court declined to reach this issue. View "In re Det. of D.H." on Justia Law

NG, CM, and AC were all involuntarily detained under the Washington involuntary treatment act (ITA). NG and CM were confined at Western State Hospital for more than a month after the court orders authorizing their continued civil commitments expired. Even after hospital staff realized the court orders had expired, they continued to hold NG and CM. Staff summoned designated crisis responders to initiate “new” ITA proceedings. AC was detained under a valid court order but was involuntarily medicated at an evaluation and treatment center before a court hearing despite asserting her statutory right to not be. The trial judge continued the hearing for a day to allow AC to appear un- medicated. The Washington Supreme Court held that when the State totally disregards the requirements of the ITA by holding someone despite lacking the authority under the ITA to do so, the ITA petition shall be dismissed. "Beginning 'new' ITA proceedings while someone is being held without authority of law is not an acceptable remedy." In NG’s and CM’s cases, the Court concluded the requirements of the ITA were totally disregarded and therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and remanded to the trial courts for dismissal. In AC’s case, the Court concluded the requirements of the ITA were not totally disregarded and that she was not held without authority of law. In that case, the Court affirmed the courts below. View "In re Det. of A.C." on Justia Law