Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group - Injury Litigation Attorneys

TRUST: Personal injuries are personal. Which is why the attorneys at ILG treat every client and every case differently. Because they are different, and extremely personal. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built on trust. Trust that you will be heard. Trust that you will be protected. Trust that every effort will be made to see justice done in your case. The singular goal of every ILG attorney is to earn and preserve that trust.

EXPERIENCE: ILG attorneys have a broad base of litigation experience to draw on in all Federal and State courts from on-the-ground investigations to Supreme Court appeals and we bring this experience to bear on behalf of our clients in personal injury and wrongful death claims arising out of motor vehicle accidents, bus versus pedestrian accidents, defective and dangerous products, medical malpractice, slip/trip and fall accidents, and catastrophic losses due to fire.

LOCATION: We are located on the Eastside in Issaquah, convenient to Bellevue, Redmond, Kirkland, Renton, Sammamish and North Bend. However, we provide legal services in King County, Pierce County, Snohomish County and throughout the entire state of Washington.

In addition, through The Amateur Law Professor Blog and LinkedIn postings, we share pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Supreme Court, as well as the pertinent opinions and decisions of the Washington State Courts of Appeal so that our clients can be as update to date on cutting legal issues as we are.

WA Legal Roundup: Division III


Martin v. Criminal Justice Training Commission

Martin was a Steven’s County Sheriff’s Officer who was investigated for an allegation of untruthfulness in regards to the facts surrounding his charging a defendant with Driving Without a License.  The investigation was conducted by Captain George who discharged his official duties when interviewing Martin.  The facts imply that Martin lied to George about what happened and Martin subsequently resigned from his position while the investigation was pending.  If Martin had not resigned, he would have been terminated.  The Sheriff’s Office notified the Criminal Justice Training Commission that Martin had been terminated.

Martin held a peace officer certificate from the Criminal Justice Training Commission.  The Commission sought to revoke Martin’s certificate based on his discharge for disqualifying conduct (making a false or misleading statement to a public servant).  Martin requested a hearing and the Commission concluded at the hearing that Martin had been discharged for disqualifying misconduct pursuant to RCW 43.101.010(7)(b).  Martin appealed to the Superior Court, where the case was reversed and remanded for a new hearing.  The Commission appealed that ruling. 

To reverse an administrative order, a reviewing court must find that the order:  (1) is based on an error of law; (2) is based on findings not supported by substantial evidence; (3) is arbitrary or capricious; (4) violates the constitution; (5) is beyond the statutory authority; or (6) the agency has engaged in an unlawful procedure or decision making process or has failed to follow a prescribed procedure.  (Now that brought back memories of the Bar review!)  Martin claimed that there was an error of law in that the Commission’s hearing panel did not include two members of a tribe (Martin was a tribal officer).  However, Martin did not object to the make up of the hearing panel at the time of the hearing.  He also claimed that he did receive a fair hearing because he was not granted a continuance. 

Martin’s first issue was that the Commission’s panel was prejudicial to him because there were no tribe members.  Martin was also a tribal officer.  However, the statute in affect at the time Martin appealed the Commission’s order, RCW 43.101.380, did NOT require the presence of tribal members on the panel. 

Martin also claimed that the Commission’s refusal to grant him a continuance of the hearing violated his due process rights.  Martin moved for a continuance because one of his witnesses was not available.  However, this same witness testified telephonically.  Division III held that the Commission did not abuse its discretion nor did it act in an arbitrary or capricious manner when denying the continuance. 

Peace officer no more.

Subscribe in a reader

Copyright 2014-2018 by Issaquah Law Group, PLLC. Powered by Squarespace. Background image by jakeliefer.