Seattle Attorneys Blog

Washington Court Allowed to Correct Expiration Date of DVPO as Clerical Error

September 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

A Washington protection order generally must state the date when it expires. If the order is to be permanent, the court should set its expiration date at 99 years from the date it is issued. RCW 7.105.310(5). A former wife recently appealed an order purportedly clarifying the expiration date of a renewal of a domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) against her former husband.

According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals court, the ex-wife moved to renew a DVPO against her ex-husband in November 2023. She indicated she wanted the order to remain in effect “permanently” and asked the court to renew the order for the “maximum period allowed by law.” She described ongoing communication and contact by the ex-husband. The ex-husband denied the allegations and asked the court to deny the renewal.

The ex-wife and her attorney appeared in person at the hearing, while the husband and his attorney appeared by video conference. The court granted the renewal motion. The body of the renewal order did not identify the expiration date. Instead, there was a line in the caption of the order that stated: “Renewal Expires: 11/21/2122.”

Fifth Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Student’s Claim Against University Following His Arrest and Suspension

August 31, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fifth Circuit recently considered a case in which a university student alleged the university violated his constitutional rights and Title IX with regard to an arrest, search, and the resulting disciplinary proceedings against him.

According to the court’s opinion, the plaintiff had been a student at a public university in Mississippi. He drove to campus to go to class with woman who was considering going to the university. The two started arguing and the woman alleged the plaintiff physically removed her from the vehicle “very violently.”

A campus police officer arrested the plaintiff and found a handgun when he searched the plaintiff’s backpack.

Washington Supreme Court Addresses Requirements for Juvenile Arrest Warrants

August 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent case, the Washington Supreme Court considered whether the court rule and statute related to juvenile bench warrants can be harmonized.

Upon a guilty plea to fourth degree assault in March 2022, the juvenile was sentenced to seven months’ community supervision with a number of conditions.

The state moved for a bench warrant later that month, alleging the juvenile posed a serious threat to public safety pursuant to JuCR 7.16. The state alleged she was associating with an older male with gang associations, a criminal history, and a pending investigation relating to an alleged crime against the juvenile. The state argued his criminal history and the age difference “creates a situation where [the juvenile] too poses a serious threat to community safety.”

Washington Appeals Court Vacates Supplemental Findings and Reverses and Remands Property Division in Divorce

August 25, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Property divisions and child custody in a Washington divorce can be contentious. In a recent case, the former husband requested supplemental findings after the wife appealed the property division and residential schedule. The appeals court vacated the supplemental findings and determined the trial court had erred by awarding property that, based on the evidence, did not belong to either party.

According to the appeals court, the parties had an arranged marriage in Cambodia in 2004 and subsequently got married in Washington. They had three children together. The wife filed for divorce in 2021.

The court adopted the husband’s proposed property division. It found the parties had a house in Washington valued at $720,000 with a $224,928 mortgage. The court ordered the house be sold to pay any outstanding community debt, with the parties equally sharing any additional proceeds. The court also found the parties had a house in Cambodia, which it awarded to the wife, valued at $115,000.

King County Administrative Booking Procedure Violates Washington State Constitution Protections

August 14, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Washington State Constitution provides additional protection, with article I, section 7 protecting individuals from disturbances into their private affairs without authority of law. The Washington Supreme Court recently determined that the administrative booking procedure used in King County violated article I, section 7.

The defendant was charged with a felony in King County. He was not arrested or booked, but summonsed to appear at arraignment.

The defendant pleaded not guilty and was released on his personal recognizance with certain conditions.

Fifth Circuit Concludes Name-Calling Was Not Actionable Under Title IX

July 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

In a recent case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed summary judgment in favor of a school district in a Title IX case against it, concluding other students calling the plaintiff “gay” and other names over the period of a few weeks was not severe enough to be actionable.

The plaintiff had been homeschooled prior to enrolling in fifth grade at a Mississippi public school. Most of his fifth-grade school year was held virtually. Although he was teased some in fifth grade, he did not really think he was bullied. For sixth grade, the plaintiff went to a new middle school. Other boys started teasing him more and calling him names. Some of the boys called him “gay.” He believed that meant “[e]ither a boy wants to love another boy or a transgender,” but he also believed the boys called him “gay” sometimes because they thought he could be a girl. He started “blowing kisses” at them, but said that made it worse.

The plaintiff said he repeatedly reported the name-calling to his teachers. His mother also addressed name-calling and bullying with the plaintiff’s teachers, but she was initially not aware the plaintiff was being called “gay.”

Washington Marijuana Manufacturing Conviction Reversed for Lack of Probable Cause for Warrant

July 28, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Both the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution require probable cause for a search warrant to be issued. Evidence obtained from an illegal search must be suppressed. State v. Betancourth. Even if a search warrant was obtained, evidence seized pursuant to the warrant must be suppressed if there was not probable cause. State v. Gudgell.

A defendant recently challenged his convictions, arguing the there was not probable cause for the search warrant. According to the unpublished opinion of the appeals of the appeals court, he was charged with the manufacture of marijuana after law enforcement found 149 cannabis plants inside his home.

The defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing the search warrant had not been supported by probable cause. The court denied his motion to suppress and found him guilty in a bench trial.

Washington Appeals Court Holds Weapons Surrender Statute Constitutional

July 22, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and article 1, section 9 of the Washington State Constitution both protect an individual’s right against self-incrimination. A person may, however, be compelled to answer if they are protected from the use of their answers and evidence derived from them in any subsequent criminal case against them. State v. King. A former husband recently challenged the constitutionality of the Washington weapons surrender statute under the Fifth amendment and other constitutional protections after a court found him to be non-compliant with a weapons surrender order.

The parties divorced in April 2022. The trial court issued a temporary domestic violence protection order (“DVPO”) requiring the ex-husband to surrender his firearms after the divorce. The ex-husband and his friend claimed his firearms were being stored at the friend’s house.

The ex-wife identified several additional weapons the ex-husband owned during the marriage in her declaration. The court issued a DVPO for one year and a new surrender order that listed the firearms identified in the ex-wife’s declaration.

Washington Appeals Court Affirms Spousal Maintenance Award to Former Husband

July 11, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

Spousal maintenance can be a contentious issue in some Washington divorces. In Washington, a court may order spousal maintenance in a divorce case in the amount and for the amount of time “as the court deems just,” after it considers the relevant factors. RCW 26.09.090 sets forth a non-exhaustive list of factors, including the financial of the party who is requesting maintenance; how long it would take them to obtain education or training to find appropriate employment; their standard of living while married; the length of the marriage; their physical and emotional condition, age, and financial obligations; and the other party’s ability to meet their own financial obligations.

In a recent unpublished case, a former wife appealed an order awarding the husband spousal maintenance after he alleged he was medically unable to work. The parties got married in September 2015 and the wife filed for divorce in July 2022. They settled the property division, so only the parenting plan and spousal maintenance were at issue at trial.

The husband testified he was unable to work due to an injury in 2019, so his only income was about $2,700 annually from his farm. The funds from the settlement for his accident had all gone toward expenses and legal fees.

Court Annuls Title IX Determination Due to Lack of Opportunity for Cross-Examination

June 30, 2025 | by Blair & Kim, PLLC

The right to cross-examine the complainant in Title IX disciplinary proceedings has been a controversial issue for several years. In a recent case, a New York appellate division annulled a determination that an accused student should be suspended after the decision-maker relied upon the complainant’s statements in making its determination when she was not present at the hearing or available for cross-examination.

According to the appellate division’s opinion, female student filed a complaint with the university alleging the petitioner, another student who shared a room with her, had kissed and touched her without consent. The university ultimately held a Student Conduct Board hearing. The Board found the petitioner had violated university policies and determined he should be suspended. He appealed, but his appeal was denied. He then filed a CPLR Article 78 proceeding, which is a process in New York for judicial review of administrative actions.

The petitioner argued the university denied him due process by not giving him an opportunity to question the complainant. The complainant did not testify or submit to cross-examination.