Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation: Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction: Washington (state)
Source verification: official_capture_completeness_unverified
Original Source: https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/pdf/1012055.pdf ↗

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,783 chars

(quoting Mullane v. Cent. Hanover Bank & Tr. Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314, 70 S. Ct.

652, 94 L. Ed. 865 (1950)), 456.

Washington cases have also addressed the due process requirements related

to ending a tenant’s right to continued possession of a rental home. In Carlstrom v.

Hanline, the Court of Appeals held that summary proceedings like unlawful detainer

actions satisfy the requirements of procedural due process because they provide

opportunity for complaint and answer and a hearing before a judge. 98 Wn. App.

780, 789-90, 990 P.2d 986 (2000). Similarly, in Leda v. Whisnand, the court held

that in such proceedings, a tenant must be permitted to present a written or oral

defense because due process requires “at a minimum,” that they “be afforded ‘a

meaningful opportunity to be heard.’” 150 Wn. App. 69, 83, 207 P.3d 468 (2009)

(quoting Carlstrom, 98 Wn. App. at 790). The court explained, “Washington law

simply does not countenance eviction of people from their homes without first

affording them some opportunity to present evidence in their defense.” Id.

31
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

Additionally, federal courts have considered it clearly established that police

officers cannot force people from their rental homes without due process. The Ninth

Circuit of the Court of Appeals recently denied qualified immunity in similar

circumstances where a police officer ordered a tenant to leave his leased home

without notice or process. Clark v. Davis, 772 Fed. Appx. 603, 604 (9th Cir. 2019)

(citing Greene, 456 U.S. at 456; Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 87, 92 S. Ct. 1983,

32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972)); see Prison Legal News v. Lehman, 397 F.3d 692, 701-02