HeadsUp for Washington State: Court Opinions From Tuesday, July 29, 2014

Tuesday, July 29, 2014 

To view the full text of these opinions, please visit: http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.recent or Lexis subscribers may use the links below to access the cases on either lexis.com or Lexis Advance.

Division Two of the Court of Appeals filed 2 new published opinion and Division Three filed 1 new published opinion on Tuesday, July 29, 2014.

Division Two:

1. State v. Cawyer 
No. 44271-0   
(July 29, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1877 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1877 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: Although the sentencing court exceeded its authority under the restitution statute, RCW 9.94A.753, by imposing restitution for the State's extradition expenses, RCW 10.01.160 gave the sentencing court authority to require the defendant to pay the State's extradition expenses as a court cost.

2. Dep't of Transp. v. Mendoza de Sugiyama 
No. 43859-3   
(July 29, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1872 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1872 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: COURTS; EMPLOYMENT LAW; GOVERNMENT RELATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Brief: Records subject to a CR 26(c) protective order in an ongoing civil action, on grounds that they are unduly burdensome for an agency to produce, are nonetheless "available" under the civil rules of pretrial discovery and, thus, are not exempt under the controversy exemption of the Public Records Act, ch. 42.56 RCW.

Division Three:

State v. Ward
No. 31319-1    
(July 29, 2014)
2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1871 (lexis.com)

2014 Wash. App. LEXIS 1871 (Lexis Advance)

Areas: CRIMINAL LAW

Brief: The Court of Appeals affirms the conviction of unlawful possession of a controlled substance, holding that (1) because defendant prepared the findings of fact entered in response to the suppression motion and did not object to the substitute judge's signature, there was no error in the substitute judge's signing the findings, and (2) the law enforcement officer had reasonable articulable suspicion to search defendant's person and the search did not exceed the permissible scope.

For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions, connect with us through our corporate site.