AV Preeminent 2018
Lead Counsel Rated
Justia Badge
AVVO
AVVO Reviews
 AVVO Rating 10

A Title IX discrimination case by a student accused of a Title IX violation can be difficult to prove.  A male student recently had his Title IX claims against his Illinois university dismissed. He was accused of sexual assault and the university imposed interim restrictions pending the investigation.  While the proceedings were pending, the university notified him he would be suspended while it investigated another allegation that he had used cocaine in a fraternity house.  The university subsequently found him responsible for sexual assault.

He filed suit in federal court in Illinois alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title IX, as well as breach of contract. The university moved to dismiss. The plaintiff argued the investigation and adjudication were biased against him and the university retaliated when he challenged the bias.

Because it was a motion to dismiss, the court accepted the facts alleged by the plaintiff as true and viewed them in a light most favorable to him.

Continue reading

A Washington criminal defendant may file a Knapstad motion to dismiss criminal charges due to insufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case of the crime.  Along with the motion, the defendant must submit a supporting affidavit or declaration that alleges there are no material facts in dispute and stating the agreed facts or a stipulation of facts.  The defendant may also attach witness statements, police reports, or other documentation. The prosecutor may also submit affidavits or declarations and attach documentation to be considered by the court.  If there are no material facts in dispute and the undisputed facts fail to establish a prima facie case of the crime.  The court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution. Cr. R. 8.

In a recent unpublished case, the state appealed a dismissal of charges pursuant to the defendant’s Knapstad motion.

The appeals court noted that, in deciding a Knapstad motion, the trial court considers the sufficiency of the evidence based on the facts stated in the defendant’s affidavit. Alleged facts that the prosecution does not specifically deny are deemed admitted.  The appeals court recited the facts as taken from the evidence produced by the parties.

Continue reading

A juvenile recently challenged guilty adjudications arising from her actions while being detained and forcibly changed into scrubs at the hospital.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, a deputy went to the high school because the juvenile refused to leave the school.  The juvenile made statements about suicide and self-harm.  She was transported to the hospital’s emergency department.  When she refused to change clothes, she was restrained and forcibly changed into scrubs.  Two nurses told the deputy the juvenile assaulted them.

The juvenile was charged with interference with a health care facility and two counts of assault in the third degree.

Continue reading

When a court makes a finding there was a history of domestic violence in a Washington custody case, it must impose limitations on the decision-making authority and in most cases the residential time of the parent who committed the domestic violence.  A mother recently challenged a parenting plan based on a lack of limitations on the father in light of the court’s finding of a history of domestic violence.

The parties got married in 2019 and had a son about a year later.  The mother alleged the father was abusive toward her during the relationship.  According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the father told the mother to “. . .get out” following an argument in June 2021.  The mother then moved with the child to live with her parents in New Mexico.  The father filed for divorce.

The court entered temporary orders allowing the father to have two monthly visits with the child, 25% of which were to occur in Washington.  He only actually had about a visit every other month due to the expense and work conflicts.

Continue reading

University sexual misconduct policies can reach a broad range of actions.  A female student recently sued her former university after it charged her with violations of the Code of Conduct for what occurred after she was allegedly drugged and sexually assaulted.

According to the court’s order, which recited the facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the campus police at an Indiana university received a report of a partially nude woman.  An officer found the plaintiff, disoriented and wearing just a jacket.  The officer contacted EMS and the plaintiff was taken to the hospital.  EMS and the hospital staff thought she had been given a “date rape drug” and sexually assaulted.

The university charged the plaintiff with three violations of its Code of Conduct, alleging she had engaged in: lewd, indecent or obscene conduct or conduct that violated the Sexual Misconduct Policy; actions that endangered herself or others or the academic process; and unauthorized possession and use of alcohol.

Continue reading

Income acquired while people are in a Washington Committed Intimate Relationship (“CIR”) is treated as community property.  At the end of a CIR, a court may only distribute property that would be characterized as community property if the parties were married. A party recently challenged a monetary award for unpaid wages to the woman with whom he had been in a CIR.

The man petitioned to end his CIR with the woman on February 14, 2022.  According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, she had refused to return a vehicle he had bought before the relationship.  She alleged she started working for him on July 20, 2018 and had not been paid for her work.

The man presented evidence indicating the woman was his employee beginning on July 20, 2018.  He also presented an email from her alleging she was owed more than $65,000 in unpaid wages. He stated in his financial declaration that he worked last at the beginning of April, 2020.  The woman testified they had worked together and she “was running the entire company . . . during the pandemic.” She testified she had not received any compensation.

Continue reading

Video can be important evidence in a Washington criminal case.  A defendant recently challenged his convictions in which video surveillance footage played a significant part.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the police department received a report of a shot fired at a motel.  The person who reported said there were three men standing in the motel parking lot.  When the officer pulled into the parking lot, the defendant and two others walked toward the motel rooms.  The co-defendant hid behind some cars and tried to run.  The officers caught him.

The officers determined what room the defendant entered based on the motel’s surveillance video.  They obtained a search warrant for the room, and found a firearm under the mattress in that room.

Continue reading

A court may order a Washington ex parte temporary protection order without notice to the respondent pursuant to RCW 7.105.305.  These temporary protection orders are intended to protect the petitioner’s safety until a full hearing. Courts have acknowledged the risk to a petitioner’s safety if notice is required for the initial temporary order and have held that any temporary infringement on the respondent’s rights by lack of notice is justified by protecting the petitioner from the immediate threat. The court may not, however, issue a full protection order without the respondent having notice and an opportunity to be heard.  RCW 7.105.310.  A mother recently appealed a court’s denial of her motion for revision of denial of her request for a temporary Domestic Violence Protection Order (“DVPO”) on the ground she had not given notice to the respondent.

The parties shared residential custody of their five-year-old child.  The mother petitioned for a DVPO for herself and the child while the parenting plan appeal was pending.  She sought an immediate temporary DVPO until a full hearing could be held.  She alleged the child came back from the father’s custody on July 8, 2023 in “urine soaked clothing” and said the father had touched his “private area.” At the hospital, the child told a staff member he “feels unsafe” at his father’s home and that his father “hits him” and “touch[es] his privates.” The mother also alleged the child had frequent bedwetting, feared using the bathroom alone, developed tics, and exhibited dissociation.

The superior court commissioner denied the temporary DVPO and did not set a full hearing, marking the box that stated the petition did not list a specific incident and approximate date of the behavior supporting the protection order. The order also indicated the petitioner had 14 days to amend the petition before it was dismissed.  The commissioner marked the box stating service on the father was “not required” because “[t]he petition was denied.”

Continue reading

To admit evidence of a breath test in a Washington criminal case, the state must produce prima facie evidence of certain facts, including that the tested person did not have any foreign substances in their mouth in the fifteen minutes before the test. RCW 46.61.506. The state can make this showing with evidence a check of the person’s mouth found no foreign substances or evidence that the person denied having anything in their mouth.

According to the appeals court’s unpublished opinion, the defendant was involved in a dirt bike collision.  He told the deputy on the scene that he had consumed alcohol a few hours earlier.   The deputy said the defendant had chewing tobacco in his mouth but removed it at the scene.  The deputy arrested the defendant for driving under the influence and took him to jail.

At the jail, the deputy prepared to give the defendant a breath alcohol test.  He asked if the defendant had anything in his mouth and the defendant answered no.  The deputy observed strands of tobacco in the defendant’s teeth that were not taken out before the test.

Continue reading

Individuals facing Washington criminal charges have a due process right to a “fair trial in a fair tribunal.”  A person’s due process rights may be violated if the court acts as an advocate instead of a neutral arbiter.  A juvenile recently challenged his conviction after the trial judge questioned the prosecution’s witnesses.

The 15-year-old juvenile was charged with escape in the second degree.  The state alleged he had “knowingly escape[d]” from home custody.

Witnesses

A community placement specialist testified about ankle monitor technology and electronic home monitoring (“EHM”).   He was asked on cross examination if he remembered going over the contract with the juvenile or if his answers were based off the reports.  He testified that he “felt” like he had, but could not say so for certain.

Continue reading

Contact Information