Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Related Parts of This Source

1,744 chars

3034, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987). A right may be “‘clearly established’ even absent a

specific holding on the particular question at issue.” Staats, 139 Wn.2d at 772.

Qualified immunity does not require that a court has previously held the same

conduct unconstitutional—rather, “‘in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness

must be apparent.’” Jones v. State, 170 Wn.2d 338, 355, 242 P.3d 825 (2010)

(quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640).

Here, the State argues any reasonable police officer would know due process

protects a tenant’s property interest in their rented home. Appellant State of Wash.’s

Br. at 52-53 (quoting Greene v. Lindsey, 456 U.S. 444, 450-51, 102 S. Ct. 1874, 72

L. Ed. 2d 249 (1982)). In Greene, the United States Supreme Court held that a

sheriff’s department’s practice of service of process in forcible entry and detainer

actions by placing notices on apartment doors fell short of the “minimum standards

of due process.” 456 U.S. at 453. The Court observed that evicted tenants had “been

deprived of a significant interest in property: indeed, of the right to continued

30
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

residence in their homes,” and it recognized that the basic principles of due process

first require notice and an opportunity to be heard. Id. at 451. Since the notice was

not “‘reasonably calculated, under all the circumstances, to apprise interested parties

of the pendency of the action and afford them an opportunity to present their

objections,’” the State deprived the tenants of property without due process of law,

in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 449-50 (emphasis omitted)