City of Seattle v. May
256 P.3d 1161
Wash.2011Background
- Permanent King County DVPO issued 12/30/1996 prohibiting contact with ex-wife; order labeled 'permanent' with boilerplate that less than one year is insufficient to prevent further DV.
- Order advised violation with actual notice of terms is a criminal offense under 26.50 RCW and 10.31.100, subjecting violator to arrest; May signed receipt.
- May contacted ex-wife in 2005 and was charged in Seattle Municipal Court with two counts of violating the DVPO; four counts initially, two convictions with deferred two-year sentence.
- Superior Court reversed municipal court; CA reversed and reinstated convictions; May sought Supreme Court review.
- Issue presented: whether collateral bar bars challenging the order’s validity in a violation proceeding; and whether lack of notice renders the prosecution unconstitutional.
- Court holds: collateral bar precludes challenging validity of the underlying order (except to show voidness); order not void and May may seek modification instead.
- Court also holds: May had fair notice of criminal penalties under 26.50 RCW (Bunker control), so due process not violated by prosecution despite the order’s language.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Collateral bar precludes validity challenge | May argues order invalid due to facial defect | City argues collateral bar bars such challenges unless void | Collateral bar precluded May's challenge to validity |
| Due process notice for no-contact violation | May lacked notice that no-contact violation could be criminal, not contempt | Bunker shows notice was sufficient under 26.50 RCW | Prosecution did not violate due process; May had fair warning |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Noah, 9 P.3d 858 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (collateral bar rule generally bars challenges to enforcement orders; exception for void orders)
- State v. Miller, 123 P.3d 827 (Wash. 2005) (gate-keeping function; validity of order not an element; orders may be excluded if inapplicable)
- City of Seattle v. Edwards, 941 P.2d 697 (Wash. App. 1997) (death of Edwards; Miller overruled parts; applicability of orders considered at gate-keeping stage)
- Joy v. Joy, 114 P.3d 1228 (Wash. App. 2005) (collateral attack limits; facial validity challenges via enforcement)
- Spence v. Kaminski, 12 P.3d 1030 (Wash. App. 2000) (discussed for boilerplate findings in context of requiring explicit findings)
- State v. Bunker, 238 P.3d 487 (Wash. 2010) (holds that criminal penalties under 26.50 may apply to violations of no-contact orders)