Court Opinion

ID: 9570631
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:24:49.020017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:27.879969
License: Public Domain

Callow, J.
(concurring) — I concur in the result reached and in the principles enunciated in the opinion of Judge Williams. I also agree with the conclusion of Judge Horowitz that warrant servers are employees of the Seattle-Municipal Court which is constituted in accordance with the provisions of state law and does not owe its genesis, to the Seattle City Charter.
The governing state statutes contemplated that the position of warrant server would be subject to judicial appointment and serve subject to the discretion and direc*605tion of the court. A warrant server then, as a functionary of the court, was not subject to any criterion of acceptability for civil service as imposed by the Seattle Civil Service Commission. In any event, however, a warrant server, as an employee of the court, could not be subject to the authority of the executive branch.
The statutory pattern recognized these concepts which are complimentary rather than diverse. Both approaches to the result are in reality, I believe, but one, whether the authority of a branch of government to manage its own affairs is recognized at the outset by the legislative branch or delineated by the judicial branch when friction occurs. Both concepts, explicitly and tacitly, express the principle that the power and authority of one branch of government to carry out its function without interference from another is essential to the strength of the whole.