Source: https://www.hesterlawgroup.com/publications/civil-rights
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 08:56:02+00:00

Document:
Division III has recently held that courts ordering “cash only” bail violate CrR 3.2(a). See City of Yakima v. Mollett, No. 20548-7-III, Div. III (2003). For years attorneys and defen- dants have felt “cash only” bail is a violation of the court rule and the state constitution. Fi- nally, an attorney and defendant have been passionate enough about the cause that it has been brought before Division III.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has again put practitioners on notice to be careful in advising their clients if and when their gun rights have been restored under state statutes. In United States v. Brailey, No. 04-30083, May 19, 2005, the Ninth Circuit upheld the conviction for the unlawful possession of a firearm in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9).
In State v. Davis, 2005 WL 1115865 (May 12, 2005), the Supreme Court decided the is- sue of whether evidence of 911 calls violated a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation under the Supreme Court’s decision in Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004).
State v. Thompson, Supreme Court of Washington, Docket No. 72997-2, June 24, 2004, is a great case regarding statutory construction and reality in assessing a detectives actions and prosecutor’s assertions.
Recently, the Ninth Circuit decided the case of U.S. vs. Scott, 04-10090, (September 9, 2005), holding that police must have probable cause to search an individual released pending trial pursuant to conditions of release.
The Ninth Circuit in USA v. Danielson, 325 F3rd 1054, filed March 24, 2003, decided that the government cannot use information from a defendant concerning trial strategy.
Part of our practice includes representing individuals who have had their civil rights violated by law enforcement. These cases are very difficult because of the positive image most jurors have of law enforcement and the usual lack of independent witnesses to verify a civil rights violation.
In State v. Heritage, 20617-3-III (2002), a juvenile was convicted on stipulated facts of possession of drug paraphernalia after her motion to suppress seized evidence (a pipe) and her incriminating statement was denied.
Justice Souter, in Bruce Edward Brendlin, Petitioner, v. California, 551 U.S. ____ 2007, No. 06-8120, delivered an opinion that when an officer makes a traffic stop and a passenger is seized as well the driver, the passenger may challenge the constitutionality of the stop under the Fourth Amendment.

References: v. 
 v. 
 § 922
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.