Opinion ID: 2454063
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Threshold Finding of Validity Required by Miller

Text: ¶ 24 In Miller this court held the validity of a no-contact order was not an implied element of a violation of a no-contact order. Miller, 156 Wash.2d at 24, 123 P.3d 827. [T]he `validity' of the no-contact order is a question of law appropriately within the province of the trial court to decide as part of the court's gate-keeping function. Id. The court, as part of its gate-keeping function, should determine as a threshold matter whether the order alleged to be violated is applicable and will support the crime charged. Id. at 31, 123 P.3d 827. Issues relating to applicability of the order to the crime charged include: whether the court granting the order was authorized to do so; whether the order was adequate on its face; and whether the order complied with the underlying statute. Id. Inapplicable orders should not be admitted into evidence. Id. If no order is admissible, the charge should be dismissed. Id. ¶ 25 RCW 26.50.060(1) authorizes a trial court to issue a protection order after notice and hearing. Spence v. Kaminski, 103 Wash.App. 325, 331, 12 P.3d 1030 (2000); City of Seattle v. Edwards, 87 Wash.App. 305, 310, 941 P.2d 697 (1997), overruled on other grounds by Miller, 156 Wash.2d 23, 123 P.3d 827. The court issuing the protection order is required to make all findings mandated by the underlying statute. CR 52(a)(2)(C); Wold v. Wold, 7 Wash.App. 872, 503 P.2d 118 (1972). A permanent protection order requires the issuing court to find the respondent is likely to resume acts of domestic violence against the petitioner after expiration of the order. RCW 26.50.060(2); Spence, 103 Wash.App. at 331, 12 P.3d 1030. May asserts a valid permanent protection order must expressly include this finding on its face. ¶ 26 A permanent protection order does not require any particular wording. Edwards, 87 Wash.App. at 310, 941 P.2d 697; see RCW 26.50.060. The governing statute, however, does require that a particular finding be made before the issuance of a permanent order, namely that the respondent is likely to resume acts of domestic violence against the petitioner when the order expires. [4] RCW 26.50.060(2). The City properly concedes, The findings themselves must of course be made.... Br. of Appellant at 3-4. As a condition of applicability, it is the State's burden to prove the existence of a clear and explicit finding that satisfies the statutory prerequisites. ¶ 27 Here the only evidence of such finding was the boilerplate language on the face of the order. Consequently, the boilerplate language, the only indication of a finding, must satisfy the statutory mandate.