Opinion ID: 2615021
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Good Faith/Immunity

Text: The City makes a third claim of good faith. It has maintained throughout the proceedings that it is immune from liability because of its good faith reliance on the forfeiture statute and a reasonable belief that it applied. The City made the argument more forcefully after the trial court suggested that the forfeiture statute might be unconstitutional. However, it did not sharply define the issue until its motion for reconsideration in the Court of Appeals. This issue is precluded under RAP 2.5(a) [65] as one raised for the first time on appeal since the City has not established its entitlement to an exception under the rule. [66] The City claims that under Hocker v. Woody [67] it is immune from liability for the unintentional violation of a constitutional right. It cites Hocker for the principle of immunity for a public officer who violates the constitutional rights of others, unless the officer acts with malicious intent, where the particular right violated was not clearly established at the time of the officer's actions. [68] There has been no showing in this case of malicious intent on the part of the City or any of its officers. Indeed, to the contrary, the letter from the city manager to the Employment Security Department stating that the City did not want to dismiss Respondent is some indication of good faith. The City argues that the constitutional right it may have violated was not clearly established because there is a split of authority on the question whether a foreign felony conviction is sufficient to precipitate application of a state forfeiture statute. [69] The City is partially correct in making this assertion. There are few cases on this issue; most are old, all concern elected officers, and only one holds that a federal felony conviction which would only constitute a misdemeanor under state law may result in forfeiture of office. [70] Those cases generally agree that where a conviction invokes the forfeiture statute, the duties and powers of the officer, at the very least, are suspended pending outcome of an appeal. [71] In most cases the office was forfeited. [72] However, there is disagreement as to which convictions will invoke the forfeiture statute. Some state courts applying their forfeiture statute require that the felony conviction in another state or in federal court have the same sentence or that the crime have the same elements sufficient under their own laws for application of their own forfeiture statutes. [73] Other state courts only require a felony conviction in another state or federal court regardless whether the acts committed would constitute a felony in their states. [74] The City is correct in stating that there is a split of authority on requirements for invoking forfeiture statutes. However, the constitutionality of the forfeiture statutes was not questioned in any of the cases reviewed. Those cases favor the position of the City because none have ruled the forfeiture statutes unconstitutional.