City Of Longview Police Dept. v. Sidney A. Potts
48410-2
| Wash. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2017Background
- Police executed controlled buys and obtained a search warrant that expressly authorized searching Potts Family Motors but not two other properties (his second dealership and home); nevertheless officers searched all three and seized vehicles, tools, cash, and bank accounts under RCW 69.50.505.
- Potts was criminally prosecuted, convicted on several drug- and related counts, and appealed; the Court of Appeals affirmed convictions but held the search warrant did not authorize searching Potts’s home (and thus ordered return of property seized from the home).
- Separately, an administrative civil forfeiture hearing (Dec. 2013) resulted in forfeiture of 29 vehicles, 19 tools/equipment, and about $56,000; the hearing officer found the property was obtained in felony drug activity.
- Potts timely filed a petition for review in superior court but his initial notice omitted many technical details required by RCW 34.05.546; he later filed a judicial notice and a supplemental notice adding facts and requests for relief.
- The superior court dismissed Potts’s appeal under RCW 34.05.546; this Court reversed that dismissal once and remanded, but on remand the superior court again dismissed under RCW 34.05.546 and denied Potts’s motions to vacate and to compel the agency record.
- On this appeal the Court of Appeals held Potts had cured the initial procedural defects, applied collateral estoppel from the criminal ruling to the civil forfeiture as to property seized from the home and second dealership, and vacated those portions of the forfeiture order; it reversed the dismissal of his appeal and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Potts’s petition complied with RCW 34.05.546 | Potts: his notice + attached forfeiture order substantially complied | City: notice lacked required elements under RCW 34.05.546 | Court: initial notice failed to comply because required facts, reasons, mailing address, and requested relief were missing |
| Whether substantial compliance / cure occurred | Potts: his judicial notice and supplemental notice cured defects | City: Potts never met statutory requirements | Court: timely petition plus judicial notice and supplemental notice cured noncompliance; dismissal was improper on that ground |
| Whether criminal ruling on invalid search controls forfeiture (collateral estoppel) | Potts: criminal ruling that warrant invalid precludes forfeiture of property seized from invalidly searched locations | City: civil forfeiture is separate and may be decided independently | Court: collateral estoppel applies (identical issue, final judgment, privity, no injustice); forfeiture order void as to property seized from home and second dealership |
| Whether superior court erred re: motions to vacate and to compel | Potts: court abused discretion in denying motions | City: procedural/default defenses and record sufficiency | Court: motion-to-vacate denial not reviewed (not designated in appeal); motion-to-compel record denial not addressed due to insufficient record on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Skagit Surveyors & Eng’rs, LLC v. Friends of Skagit County, 135 Wn.2d 542 (1998) (attachment may satisfy petition requirements only if content contains required information)
- Clymer v. Employment Security Dep’t, 82 Wn. App. 25 (1996) (substantial compliance standard for procedural defects)
- Barlindal v. City of Bonney Lake, 84 Wn. App. 135 (1996) (collateral estoppel in criminal-to-civil forfeiture context)
- City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn. App. 360 (2009) (requirements for collateral estoppel and forfeiture procedure)
- Deeter v. Smith, 106 Wn.2d 376 (1986) (distinguishing criminal and civil forfeiture proceedings)