Law Commons^™

Rock And Hard Place Arguments, Jareb Gleckel, Grace Brosofsky

Seattle University Law Review

This Article explores what we coin “rock and hard place” (RHP) arguments in the law, and it aims to motivate mission-driven plaintiffs to seek out such arguments in their cases. The RHP argument structure helps plaintiffs win cases even when the court views that outcome as unfavorable.

We begin by dissecting RHP dilemmas that have long existed in the American legal system. As Part I reveals, prosecutors and law enforcement officials have often taken advantage of RHP dilemmas and used them as a tool to persuade criminal defendants to forfeit their constitutional rights, confess, or give up the chance to …

Why Do We Admit Criminal Confessions Into Evidence?, David Crump

Seattle University Law Review

There is an enormous literature about the admissibility of criminal confessions. But almost all of it deals with issues related to self-incrimination or, to a lesser extent, with hearsay or accuracy concerns. As a result, the question whether we ever admit criminal confessions into evidence has not been the subject of much analysis. This gap is odd, since confessions are implicitly disfavored by a proportion of the literature and they often collide with exclusionary doctrines. Furthermore, the self-incrimination issue sometimes is resolved by balancing, and it would help if we knew what we were balancing. Therefore, one might ask: Why …

Recording A New Frontier In Evidence-Gathering: Police Body-Worn Cameras And Privacy Doctrines In Washington State, Katie Farden

Seattle University Law Review

This Note contributes to a growing body of work that weighs the gains that communities stand to make from police body-worn cameras against the tangle of concerns about how cameras may infringe on individual liberties and tread on existing privacy laws. While police departments have quickly implemented cameras over the past few years, laws governing the use of the footage body-worn cameras capture still trail behind. Notably, admissibility rules for footage from an officer’s camera, and evidence obtained with the help of that footage, remain on the horizon. This Note focuses exclusively on Washington State’s laws. It takes a clinical …

Character, Liberalism, And The Protean Culture Of Evidence Law, Daniel D. Blinka

Seattle University Law Review

It is time to rethink character evidence. Long notorious as the most frequently litigated evidence issue, character doctrine plagues courts, trial lawyers, and law students with its infamously “grotesque” array of nonsensical rules, whimsical distinctions, and arcane procedures. Character is a calculation of social worth and value; it is the sum total of what others think of us, whether expressed as their own opinion or the collective opinions of many (reputation). Once we grasp that character is a social construct, we are in a better position to address some of the problems that plague evidence law. To provide needed clarity …

The Admissibility Of Cell Site Location Information In Washington Courts, Ryan W. Dumm

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment principally explores when and how a party can successfully admit cell cite location information into evidence. Beginning with the threshold inquiry of relevance, Part III examines when cell site location information is relevant and in what circumstances the information, though relevant, could be unfairly prejudicial, cumulative, or confusing. Part IV provides the bulk of the analysis, which centers on the substantive foundation necessary to establish the information’s credibility and authenticity. Part V looks at three ancillary issues: hearsay, a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment confrontation rights, and the introduction of a summary of voluminous records. Finally, Part VI offers …

Protect Me From Myself: Determining Competency To Waive The Right To Counsel During Civil-Commitment Proceedings In Washington State, Jacob J. Stender

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that an unarticulated, heightened standard of competency to waive counsel, under which Washington currently operates, is the ideal standard to address the unique concerns that exist in civil- commitment proceedings. This Comment clarifies the existing law governing the determination of a party’s right to waive counsel, as well as the determination of the validity of such a waiver. This Comment also articulates a comprehensive inquiry standard for trial courts, both within and outside of Washington, to apply when determining the competency of a party and the validity of a waiver. The goal of this express determination standard …

Judicial Decision-Making, Social Science Evidence, And Equal Educational Opportunity: Uneasy Relations And Uncertain Futures, Michael Heise

Seattle University Law Review

The full extent of what the Court decided in Grutter and Parents Involved remains in some dispute. What is far more certain is that both cases continue to stir deeply held passions that help frame public and legal debates about the Court and its role in affirmative action and school desegregation disputes. Amid these increasingly raucous debates, this Article expressly side steps the many questions (and controversies) about what the Court decided in those cases and seeks to escape from the frequently politically charged and volatile context of governmental uses of race. This Article instead focuses on how the Court …

After Thirty Years, Is It Time To Change The Vehicle Inventory Search Doctrine?, Nicholas B. Stampfli

Seattle University Law Review

Part II of this Comment will describe the inventory search as it has developed in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence in order to provide background and understanding of the procedure as it stands today. Part III will address the difficulties in applying the Supreme Court's approach by comparing the differences in police department policies. Part IV will then closely examine Washington's somewhat laudable approach to inventory searches, the limits the state has placed on the scope of inventory searches, and the steps the state has taken to impose a consent requirement. Last, Part V will suggest much needed reforms for Washington …

Founded Suspicion: The Ninth Circuit's Response To Almeida Sanchez, Seattle University Law Review

Seattle University Law Review

Considering the difficulty of interdicting smugglers and aliens at the Mexican border, the Ninth Circuit's ready acceptance of founded suspicion to justify searches near the border is not surprising. The United States Supreme Court, however, has consistently held that the mere presence of an important governmental interest does not justify vitiating Fourth Amendment protections. The Fourth Amendment requires courts to scrutinize closely the interests of the individual prior to concluding that the interests of the government, however exigent and compelling, are paramount. This comment, after analyzing the conceptual underpinnings of automobile seizure law and "stop and frisk"--the possible grounds supporting …

The Plain Feel Doctrine In Washington: An Opportunity To Provide Greater Protections Of Privacy To Citizens Of This State, Laura T. Bradley

Seattle University Law Review

This Comment argues that Washington should return to an independent analysis of search and seizure doctrine under article I, section 7 of the state constitution and reject the admission of contraband seized during the course of a pat-down frisk. The decisions in Hudson and Dickerson have established an unnecessary and unworkable standard, and involve an increased invasion of personal privacy without the counter-balancing need to protect the safety of others. The plain feel doctrine as announced in Dickerson and Hudson developed from two well-established concepts in search and seizure law-the Terry frisk of persons to discover weapons and the plain …

Twist And Shout And Truth Will Out: An Argument For The Adoption Of A "Safety-Valve" Exception To The Washington Hearsay Rule, George R. Nock

Seattle University Law Review

This Article will focus on two decisions of the Washington Supreme Court illustrating the unfortunate expansion of certain hearsay exceptions in order to accommodate truth, show that the expansion could have been avoided had Washington adopted a "general" exception comparable to that found in the Federal Rules of Evidence, and propose the adoption of an exception shorn of the defects of the rejected federal version.

Dismantling The Exclusionary Rule: United States V. Leon And The Courts Of Washington—Should Good Faith Excuse Bad Acts?, Catherine Cruikshank

Seattle University Law Review

This Note will review briefly the history of the exclusionary rule under fourth amendment jurisprudence, with special emphasis given to the purposes the rule has traditionally been thought to serve. The significance of the Leon decision then will be examined in light of the emergence in Washington of an interpretation of article I, section 7 that diverges from the Supreme Court's interpretations of the fourth amendment. This Note will conclude by discussing how article I, section 7 continues to embody the several purposes traditionally served by the exclusionary rule.

Survey Of Washington Search And Seizure Law, Justice Robert F. Utter

Seattle University Law Review

This Survey is designed to assist lawyers and judges who must argue and resolve search and seizure issues in Washington State. The Survey summarizes the controlling state and federal cases on search and seizure law and uses as an additional reference W. LAFAVE, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment (1978). Washington courts are likely to analyze future search and seizure issues under both the fourth amendment and Washington Constitution article I, section 7. The difference in wording between the two provisions is substantial, suggesting different degrees or types of privacy protection. This Survey summarizes the predominant treatment …

Parent-Child Privilege: Constitutional Right Or Specious Analogy?, Donald Cofer

Seattle University Law Review

To avoid reaching incorrect verdicts as a result of insufficient evidence, courts generally require witnesses to testify to all relevant facts within their knowledge. Two important exceptions to this general rule, incompetency and privilege, rest on very different rationales. Developed at common law to exclude unreliable evidence, rules of competency disqualify certain untrustworthy witnesses from testifying. To promote extrinsic public policies, however, privileges excuse competent witnesses from providing what may be highly probative and reliable evidence. In the past decade there have been calls for legislative or judicial recognition of a parent-child privilege, similar to the marital privilege, that would …