Staats v Brown :: 139 Wn2d 757
Category: Fourth Amendment
In June 1993, a state wildlife agent observed construction work and debris below the high watermark of the Snake River. It was not determined that Staats was the originator of that work, nor was any additional work completed after that time.
In September 1993, the state made a third visit to the property and Jack Staats was arrested for refusing to cooperate to receive a citation. The arresting officer had no arrest or search warrant [at 761]. When Staats tried to get away, he was physically subdued by the officer, by pulling hair and using a choke hold, dragging across rocks, etc. The officer then searched Staats’ residence and confiscated his wallet before hauling him off to jail. [at 762].
The state defended the officers’ authority because the former RCW 75.10.040 (1992) prohibits resistance to a fisheries patrol officer while performing his duties. [at 761]. However, as the Appeals Court pointed out, that even if this allowed for probable cause, the arresting officer “lacked probable cause to believe Mr. Staats had violated any of the provisions of RCW 75.” [from an unwritten opinion 26 Feb 1998]. The Supreme Court upheld that an arrest made without probable cause is a violation of the Fourth Amendment. [at 771].
The District Court ruled that Staats’ “refusal to provide information did not occur as a matter of law.” [at 762]. Because the law, as interpreted by the state, which was later repealed (1998), was in violation to the common law and Constitution. The court cited the common law rule that “a statute will not be construed in derogation of the common law unless the legislature has clearly expressed that purpose.” [at 766, citations omitted].
The District Court, Superior Court, Appeals Court and Supreme Court all agreed that no citation could be lawfully issued. [at 766]. However, the Superior Court entered a summary judgement in favor of the State. [at 759].
The court did agree to grant the arresting officer qualified immunity for the arrest. [at 773]. However, it would not grant the same immunity for the use of excessive force and the unlawful search of Staats’ home. [at 774 to 777]. Furthermore, the court stipulated that the qualified immunity for the arrest did not bar Staats’ tort action for false arrest, false imprisonment and assault and battery. [at 777]. The court was unanimous that Staats’ rights had been violated but Madsen, Talmadge, Guy and Ireland disagreed with the majority regarding the statutory authority of the arresting officer and the qualified immunity he received.
The Fourth Amendment is upheld despite the effort of four jurists to construe the law in violation of it.
Rating the Usual Suspects:
| pass | Alexander, Gerry | |
| pass | Brown, Stephen | |
| pass | Cox Jr, Neil | |
| pass | Henderson, Clinton | |
| pass | Johnson, Charles | |
| pass | Kurtz, Frank | |
| pass | Sanders, Richard | |
| pass | Schultheis, John | |
| pass | Smith, Charles | |
| fail | Guy, Richard | |
| fail | Ireland, Faith | |
| fail | Madsen, Barbara | |
| fail | Paul, Carl B | |
| fail | Schacht, Donald | |
| fail | Talmadge, Phil |