Subscribe in a reader


Issaquah Law Group: Experienced Counsel; Client Focus

PHILOSOPHY: Formed in 2014, Issaquah Law Group is a law firm with one focus: providing businesses and insurers with high quality legal representation with the responsiveness of a smaller firm. ILG was founded on the principle that strong client relationships are the key to successful legal representation and strong relationships are built upon clear and consistent communication. 

LITIGATION: We work closely with our clients to fully and accurately understand their goals, work collaboratively to formulate specific legal strategies, and execute the agreed plan of action utilizing methods most likely to result in the efficient and effective resolution of the matter. 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 in the areas of personal injury and wrongful death, product liability, commercial general liability, labor & employment, construction litigation, and catastrophic losses due to fire and explosion.

BUSINESS LAW: Rarely is the path from point A to point B a straight line, so our role in a business law practice is to find alternatives, devise workable strategies, and keep your business ideas, goals and objectives moving toward realization. ILG’s business attorneys help clients achieve their goals with respect to business formation, intellectual property, labor and employment, CAN-SPAM, copyright and trademark

COMMUNITY: In addition, the Lawyers at Issaquah Law Group remain active in the legal and civic community. A core commitment of our Issaquah Attorneys is community service. Our attorneys' civic involvement includes the King County Civil Rights Commission; the City of Issaquah Planning Policy Commission; the Northwest Screenwriters Guild, service as a pro tem judge. We live and work in the Pacific Northwest, and we aim to make it a better place.

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.

Division I: Evidently Collateral Estoppel Can Never Apply in Between Civil and Criminal Cases Because Cities are Totally Different than The State

State v. Longo

So this case has to do with the interplay of state court findings in different proceedings. Here, you have a state court determination that evidence was obtained without a proper warrant in a civil forfeiture proceeding involving the city. Then you have a later attempt by the State on the criminal charges, involving the same evidence. 

So where’s the issue here? Well, those of you in the know or that have some recollection of civil procedure know that for collateral estoppel to be applied, there has to be parity in the parties that its being used against. Here, you have the City in one Proceeding, and the State in another. The only difference is, the prosecution will happen at the County level, and the officers for the warrant were city of Bellingham. My guess is this is where the rubber is going to meet the road. 

Now here, the State Superior Court sided with Longo and held that collateral estoppel applied, and that the invalid warrant in one proceeding could not be valid in another proceeding. This makes sense, because essentially you are talking about the actions of one department, regardless of who is prosecuting the case. That and cities are political subdivisions of the State. 

So what do the cases say on privity? Well in Barlindal v. City of Bonny Lake, 84 Wn. App. 135, 925 P.2d 1289 (1996), they said there was privity between a city civil seizure and a county prosecution. Same with State v. Barnes, 85 Wn. App. 638, 932 P.2d 669 (1997). So why the departure here?

Here, however, there was no joint operation between the two entities. Only the City obtained and executed the search warrant. By statute and on these facts, the City, but not the State, was a seizing agency with the authority to commence forfeiture proceedings. See RCW 69.50.505(3). Therefore, the prosecutor was not entitled to be involved in—let alone have control over—the forfeiture proceeding. The only interest the State had in the forfeiture was its statutory recovery of ten percent of the net proceedsNo. 70523-7-1/5 from forfeited property. See RCW 69.50.505(9)(a). This is insufficient to constitute a mutuality of interests. The privity prong is not satisfied here.

That and Barnes, though there was privity, they denied the collateral estoppel based on a difference in the criminal code purpose and the civil purpose. However, that doesn’t make a lick of difference for the collateral estoppel doctrine.

See, in the civil justice system, if there’s not a preponderance of evidence that criminal conduct happened, the forfeiture goes away. Now, in Barnes, that’s what happened. So if you’re not even to the halfway point, how could you ever get to the reasonable doubt point? It makes no sense in application of the doctrine.

Perhaps its because I’m shy in caffeine, but I think this opinion by Division I is hooey! The warrant that is the basis of this was defended by the City Prosecutor, who adequately represented the County’s interest in the validity of the warrant. It seems a stretch to say that the County Prosecutor gets a second bite at this apple because there’s no privity, despite one being a subset of the other. I don’t like it. 

Issaquah Legal Services' Attorneys are skilled in using the doctrine of collateral estoppel to move you case forward and minimize litigation time and costs.

Subscribe in a reader

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