Exendine v. City of Sammamish
| Decision Date | 18 April 2005 |
| Docket Number | No. 54570-1-I.,54570-1-I. |
| Citation | 113 P.3d 494,127 Wash. App. 574,127 Wn. App. 574 |
| Court | Washington Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Michael EXENDINE and Patricia Exendine, husband and wife, Appellants, v. CITY OF SAMMAMISH, a municipal corporation, Respondent. |
Bill H. Williamson, Ross Williamson Loitz PLLC, Sea., WA, for Appellants.
Bruce Disend, Kenyon Dornay Marshall PLLC, Issaquah, WA, for Respondents.
¶ 1 Michael and Patricia Exendine (the Exendines) challenge the jurisdiction of King County District Court (District Court) to issue search warrants to search their property for alleged violations of the City of Sammamish (City) civil code. RCW 3.66.060 grants district courts jurisdiction to issue search warrants for misdemeanor violations of city ordinances. We conclude the District Court had jurisdiction to issue the search warrants to search the Exendines' property because under the City's municipal code, a willful violation of its civil code is a misdemeanor. We also conclude the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it refused to allow the Exendines to supplement the record and raise a new argument challenging the Interlocal Agreement between the City and King County to provide court services. We affirm the Hearing Examiner's decisions upholding the Notice and Orders issued to the Exendines by the City.
¶ 2 The Exendines own three adjacent tracts of forested land in the City of Sammamish. The City received complaints from neighboring landowners about alleged violations of the City's land use, housing and nuisance codes. From a nearby road, a City code enforcement officer could see a large quantity of broken down automobiles and automobile parts on the Exendines' property.
¶ 3 The City officer prepared an affidavit of probable cause and the City requested the Issaquah Division of King County District Court to issue criminal search warrants to search the Exendines' property for alleged violations of the City code. The District Court found probable cause and issued the search warrants. The warrants authorized the City to enter and search the Exendines' property for evidence of crimes related to alleged violations of the City's civil codes. On March 18, 2002, the City executed the search warrants and inspected the Exendines' property. The City found an accumulation of inoperable vehicles and automobile parts and a number of substandard and hazardous conditions resulting from remodeling work done without permits.
¶ 4 The City decided not to file criminal charges and instead cited the Exendines for violations of City codes and issued three Notice and Orders.1 The Notice and Orders required the Exendines to remove the inoperable vehicles and automobile parts, demolish or repair the buildings to bring them into compliance with applicable building codes, and cease occupancy of recreational vehicles on the property.
¶ 5 The Exendines appealed the Orders to the City's Hearing Examiner. They claimed the search warrants violated the Washington State Constitution because District Court did not have jurisdiction to issue search warrants for City code violations, the Notice and Orders were issued without reasonable cause, the stop work orders were based on erroneous facts, the Exendines' uses of the property were protected as a nonconforming use, permits had been obtained for the recreational vehicles, and the vehicles were stored on impervious surfaces. The Hearing Examiner decided he had no authority to address the Exendines' constitutional challenges to issuance of the search warrants.2 At the conclusion of a three-day hearing in July and August 2002, the Hearing Examiner found the allegations of code violations were established by the evidence and affirmed the three Notice and Orders.
¶ 6 The Exendines appealed the Hearing Examiner's decision to superior court under the Land Use Petition Act (LUPA).3 In their LUPA petition, the Exendines claimed the Hearing Examiner erred in not ruling on their constitutional challenges to the search warrants and the District Court did not have jurisdiction to issue search warrants for evidence of civil code violations.4 After the court heard argument on the LUPA appeal, the Exendines, in a supplemental memorandum, argued for the first time that the Interlocal Agreement between the City and King County to provide court services was invalid. The trial court ruled the District Court had jurisdiction to issue the search warrants because the warrants were issued to obtain evidence of alleged crimes. The court also ruled the Hearing Examiner did not have the authority to rule on the Exendines' constitutional challenge to the jurisdiction of the District Court to issue the search warrants. The court denied the Exendines' request to supplement the record with new evidence to support its argument that the Interlocal Agreement was not valid. The Exendines moved for reconsideration, and the court denied their motion. The Exendines appeal.5
¶ 7 On review of a LUPA decision, this court reviews the hearing examiner's decision on the basis of the administrative record de novo. Thornton Creek Legal Def. Fund v. City of Seattle, 113 Wash.App. 34, 47, 52 P.3d 522 (2002).6
¶ 8 The Exendines contend the search warrants issued by the District Court violate their rights under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution.7 The Exendines argue the District Court did not have jurisdiction to issue the search warrants to obtain evidence on the Exendines' property of City code violations. The issue of whether a court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law we review de novo. Crosby v. County of Spokane, 137 Wash.2d 296, 301, 971 P.2d 32 (1999). A district court can issue a search warrant only if it has jurisdiction to hear the underlying case. State v. Davidson, 26 Wash.App. 623, 625, 613 P.2d 564 (1980).
¶ 9 Under the Washington Constitution, the Legislature has the sole authority to establish the jurisdiction and duties of district and municipal courts. Washington Constitution article IV, section 1 provides, "The judicial power of the state shall be vested in a supreme court, superior courts, justices of the peace, and such inferior courts as the legislature may provide." Courts of limited jurisdiction are created by statute, and their jurisdiction must be expressly defined by statute.8
¶ 10 In Title 3 RCW, the Legislature provides alternatives for a municipality to adjudicate violations of its ordinances. A city can establish an independent municipal court, file a petition to establish a municipal department of the district court, or enter into an agreement with the district court to hear criminal and other cases. Under RCW 3.50.010, a city by ordinance can establish an independent municipal court. A municipal court created pursuant to RCW 3.50 has "exclusive original criminal jurisdiction of all violations of city ordinances duly adopted by the city in which the municipal court is located." RCW 3.50.020. Under RCW 3.46.010, "Any city may secure the establishment of a municipal department of the district court." RCW 3.46.030 provides that a municipal department of the district court also has exclusive jurisdiction of all city ordinance violations. A city can also enter into an agreement with the county in which it is located to file the City's cases in district court. District courts have jurisdiction for "all misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors... and of all violations of city ordinances." RCW 3.66.060.
¶ 11 Here, the City has not established either an independent municipal court or a municipal department of the District Court. Instead, the City entered into an interlocal agreement with King County to file all City cases in district court.9
¶ 12 The Exendines rely on Seattle v. McCready, 124 Wash.2d 300, 877 P.2d 686 (1994) (McCready II), to argue the District Court did not have authority to issue the search warrants to obtain evidence of housing and land use code violations. The Exendines contend the search warrants issued by the District Court violate Article I, section 7 of the Washington State Constitution because they were issued to search for evidence of civil code violations. In McCready II, the Court held that under the statute and court rules, the municipal court only had authority to issue a search warrant where the alleged housing code violation was a crime. The Court in McCready II held the warrants issued in that case were invalid because the violation was not criminal and no statute or court rule gave the municipal court authority to issue the search warrants. McCready, 124 Wash.2d at 310,877 P.2d 686.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
City of Spokane v. County of Spokane
...to prescribe the jurisdiction and powers of district and municipal courts. See Wash. Const. art. IV, § 12; Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wash. App. 574, 580, 113 P.3d 494 (2005). The legislature has provided that each county, city, and town is responsible for the prosecution, adjudicat......
-
Renton Neighbors For Healthy Growth v. PACLAND, 66874-9-I
...947 P.2d 1208 (1997) ("Our cases require issues to be first raised at the administrative level . . . ."); Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn.App. 574, 113 P.3d 494 (2005) (trial court properly refused to allow LUPA petitioners to raise a new argument not raised or argued before the heari......
-
Renton Neighbors for Healthy Growth v. Pacland
...869, 947 P.2d 1208 (1997) ("Our cases require issues to be first raised at the administrative level . . . ."); Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wn. App. 574, 113 P.3d 494 (2005) (trial court properly refused to allow LUPA petitioners to raise a new argument not raised or argued before the......
-
Miller v. City of Sammamish
...that the "pond was not a regulated wetland, but the area surrounding it was, as was Wetland L."2 Citing Exendine v. City of Sammamish, 127 Wash. App. 574, 113 P.3d 494 (2005), the hearing examiner concluded that constitutional arguments were beyond his scope of review. This is likely in res......