Skip to main content

Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf

Citation
Wash. Supreme Court published opinion — 1012055.pdf
Jurisdiction
Washington (state)
Source verification
official_capture_completeness_unverified

Related Parts of This Source

Full Text

1,719 chars
tenants. And here, each of the individual police officer respondents have stated that

they understand they have no authority to evict tenants. Thus, the contours of the

right are sufficiently clear and a reasonable officer would understand the alleged

misconduct violates that right. Id.

The respondents also argue that none of these cases control because they

dispute that any of the tenants the State has identified here were actually evicted.

Again, at summary judgment, we view the facts in the light most favorable to the

State as the nonmoving party, Clements, 121 Wn.2d at 249, and there are genuine

disputes of material fact as to whether tenants were forced to leave their homes at

the direction of police and by which police officers. The individual police officers

deny they evicted anyone, ordered landlords to evict tenants, or ordered tenants to

leave their homes. In contrast, numerous tenants contend Rivas told them to leave

33
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.
State v. City of Sunnyside et al.
No. 101205-5

their apartments or told their landlords to evict them, and they understood they were

evicted at the direction of the police. See 2 CP at 790-91 (Vargas), 799 (Chagolla),

759 (Heather Francis), 764 (Rodney Francis), 813 (León), 782 (Santos Nuño), 769

(Paniagua Dimas), 775 (Paniagua); see also id. at 462 (police report stating Rivas

requested the landlord evict residents), 662 (same). These are genuine issues of

material fact that need further analysis at the trial court.

The other individual respondents also argue that none of them participated in

any conduct that allegedly violated the federal constitution. The tenants’