In Re The Estate Of James Crampton Rogers
49123-1
| Wash. Ct. App. | Oct 10, 2017Background
- On June 24, 2008, Trooper Russell Sanders observed James Rogers driving erratically after a dispatch report; Sanders stopped Rogers and smelled alcohol and marijuana, observed bloodshot/slurred behavior, Rogers failed field sobriety tests, attempted to hide contraband, and was arrested.\
- Rogers’s vehicle was impounded; a tow operator found a duffel bag containing a can with a pipe and apparent marijuana.\
- Rogers entered a pretrial diversion agreement in January 2009 in which he waived challenges to evidence and the order stated probable cause existed; he completed diversion and charges were dismissed.\
- Rogers administratively challenged DOL revocation in an October 2008 telephonic hearing; the DOL hearing officer dismissed the proposed revocation.\
- In April 2011 Rogers sued the State, Trooper Sanders, and the towing company asserting § 1983, Fourth Amendment, trespass, negligence, conversion, and malicious prosecution claims; Rogers died and his estate continued the suit.\
- The superior court granted summary judgment for the State and Trooper Sanders and denied reconsideration; the Estate appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Rogers’s DOL hearing testimony in summary judgment | Estate: DOL testimony is admissible under ER 804(b)(1) (former testimony) and creates triable facts | State: DOL hearing involved different issues and opposing party lacked similar motive to cross-examine; hearsay exception inapplicable | Court: Exclusion proper — opposing party did not have similar motive to develop testimony; even if admitted, testimony concerned post-arrest matters irrelevant to stop/arrest legality |
| Legality of the traffic stop (reasonable articulable suspicion) | Estate: Stop was unlawful (supporting § 1983/Fourth Amendment claim) | State: Dispatch report + Sanders’s corroborating observations provided reasonable suspicion | Court: Stop was lawful — reasonable articulable suspicion existed |
| Probable cause for arrest (warrantless arrest) | Estate: Arrest unlawful (supporting § 1983/Fourth Amendment claim) | State: Observations (odor, appearance, slurred speech, attempts to hide contraband, failed SFSTs, admission of drinking) supplied probable cause | Court: Arrest was lawful — probable cause existed; § 1983 claims fail on the merits |
| Trespass/negligence/conversion based on impoundment | Estate: If stop/arrest invalid, State liable via respondeat superior and conversion for towing | State: Stop, arrest, and statutory impound (RCW 46.55.113(2)(d)) were lawful, so no liability | Court: Claims fail — stop/arrest lawful and impoundment authorized; no trespass/conversion/negligence liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Robb v. City of Seattle, 176 Wn.2d 427 (discusses standard of review for summary judgment)\
- Keck v. Collins, 184 Wn.2d 358 (summary judgment standards)\
- Sutton v. Tacoma Sch. Dist. No. 10, 180 Wn. App. 859 (when issues of fact may be decided on summary judgment)\
- Parks v. Fink, 173 Wn. App. 366 (admissibility of evidence in summary judgment reviewed de novo)\
- State v. Gatewood, 163 Wn.2d 534 (constitutionality of warrantless stops reviewed de novo)\
- State v. Chacon Arreola, 176 Wn.2d 284 (reasonable articulable suspicion for investigative stops)\
- State v. Gaddy, 152 Wn.2d 64 (probable cause standard for warrantless arrests)\
- Sintra, Inc. v. City of Seattle, 119 Wn.2d 1 (state courts’ concurrent jurisdiction over § 1983 claims)\
- Haywood v. Drown, 556 U.S. 729 (federal jurisdictional context for § 1983)