Division II: Omnibus Edition
What happens when you have a few opinions to catch up on, but you don’t quite want to just ditch the writing and skip a few to catch up? That’s right! You get an omnibus post. Here’s what’s been happening in Division II since we last spoke:
The Weller’s abused their kids. Part of the evidence against them was a board used to beat the kids. The officer’s were invited inside, and when talking to the kids in the garage, saw the board and asked if it was the board used to beat them. Plain view exception, the board stays in evidence.
Let me tell you how challenging a long-standing criminal statute usually goes. Not well for Smith either. His conviction for failing to register as a sex offender stands.
This all has to do with to what extent juvenile attempted violent crime convictions can be used to support sentencing points as an adult. Division II adopted Division I’s reasoning in State v. Becker, and allowed the conviction in as a prior violent crime due to the sentencing act’s language that says an attempt should be scored the same as the actual crime. Crime law peeps should read this one, as there’s some nuance to Becker and Ashley in terms of subjective intent in the attempt versus a related completed crime.
Deadly assault can be applied to felony murder rule. Those that follow this blog know that there were some issues with counting the predicate assault under the old Andress, but the statute was specifically amended after the Andress decision to include a predicate assault that leads to death. McDaniel’s conviction stands.
Normally, I would just call land use attorneys nerds and move on. But since this is an omnibus, I suppose I can spare a sentence or two. Oops, those were my two sentences. Sorry, nerds! But seriously, land use attorneys should read this GMA case.
Some people think of white trash when they hear the name Hicks. Not me. I think of the famed avant garde comedian Bill Hicks. Anyhow, this has to do with a public records request a Fife police officer made to the city. Lest you think Hicks is some open government hero, he was making a claim that paying bilingual officers extra was racial discrimination and that he was a whistleblower for bringing this to light. Real peach, that one.
Hicks then sought the investigation file through a public records request. The city claimed work product and attorney-client privilege. The court rules some of the investigation file had to be produced. The trial court based this on the fact that it was improper to redact Hick’s own information, as he was the requestor, and that participation in media coverage essentially waived other protections regarding redactions.
The Court of Appeals held that while this was an investigation and that it focused on a particular individual, it did not show that privacy of the investigation was essential for effective law enforcement. The city said that openness of witnesses was essential for internal investigations. Division II said that the precedent cited was only dicta, and that there was no clear precedent that internal investigations are essential for law enforcement. Division II also strains an interpretation of Bellevue John Does (I know, I worked on that one) and holds that the names of people being investigated is not private despite unsubstantiated allegations.
While I agree as to the redacting of your own information, the rest seems a load of hooey, especially in light of the need for police to crack down internally on misconduct. While the city’s allegations for withholding could have been more artfully worded, I think the result in the case is largely wrong.
Is a business that happens to be attached to an apartment a dwelling. Apparently that is for the jury to decide and Mcpherson’s conviction stands. The statute says it can be residential burglary if you enter a structure, or a portion thereof, used as a residence. He didn’t enter a structure used as a residence, he entered a jewelry store. He didn’t enter the portion of a building used as a residence, he entered a jewelry store. I don’t know that I necessarily agree to this interpretation, but there is mixed case law. However, the case law focuses largely on the fact that the primary purpose of the building was a residence, and the tool room or basement or garage were attached to that. Mixed feelings here, folks. Mixed feelings.