Patrice v. Murphy, No. 66568-1

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Washington
Writing for the CourtJOHNSON; DURHAM
Citation966 P.2d 1271,136 Wn.2d 845
Parties. Patrick MURPHY; Michael O. Lively; J. Bodmer; N. Preslar; William Harper; and J. Does 1 to 10, Defendants. Jeannette PATRICE, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SNOHOMISH; and Snohomish County, Defendants. Supreme Court of Washington, En Banc
Decision Date19 November 1998
Docket NumberNo. 66568-1

Page 845

136 Wn.2d 845
966 P.2d 1271
Certification from the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington in Jeannette
PATRICE, Plaintiff,
v.
Patrick MURPHY; Michael O. Lively; J. Bodmer; N. Preslar;
William Harper; and J. Does 1 to 10, Defendants.
Jeannette PATRICE, Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF SNOHOMISH; and Snohomish County, Defendants.
No. 66568-1.
Supreme Court of Washington,
En Banc.
Argued Sept. 24, 1998.
Decided Nov. 19, 1998.

Page 846

Jim Sweetser, Spokane County Pros., Martin Muench, Kathryn Lee, Spokane County Pros. Deputies, Spokane, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State Association of Prosecuting Attorneys.

Keating, Bucklin & McCormack, Stewart Estes, Seattle, Keithly & Weed, Grant K. Weed, Snohomish, for Defendants.

[966 P.2d 1272] Stokes, Eitelbach & Lawrence, Scott A.W. Johnson,

Page 847

Claudia M. Balducci, Laura Buckland, Alexander J. Higgins, Seattle, for Plaintiff.

JOHNSON, J.

The United States District Court, Western District of Washington, certified the following question under RCW 2.60:

Whereas RCW 2.42.120, pertaining to "Interpreters in Legal Proceedings" involving the hearing impaired, was added by way of House amendment to Senate Bill No. 4155 (and ultimately enacted as § 12 of Ch. 389 of the Laws of 1985), and whereas the stated subject matter of Senate Bill No. 4155 pertained to "Changing the Definition of Court Costs a Convicted Defendant may be Required to Pay," and whereas the title of Senate Bill No. 4155 as enacted was ordered to stand as "An Act Relating to the court costs; amending RCW 10.01.160, 27.24.070, 3.46.120, 3.50.100, 3.62.010, 3.62.040, 10.82.070, 35.20.220, 36.18.025, and 2.42.050; adding new sections to Ch. 2.42 RCW; providing an effective date; and declaring an emergency," was the enactment of RCW 2.42.120 violative of Article II, Section 19, of the Washington Constitution thereby rendering the statute invalid as the title of the Bill does not describe its subject matter, and as the Bill contains two unrelated subjects? [ 1

Page 848

Order on Question for Certification to the Washington State Supreme Court at 2.

FACTS

Most of the facts in this case are disputed by the parties. However, for purposes of this court's review, a skeletal framework of the essential facts has been stipulated to by both parties. On January 22, 1994, City of Snohomish police officers responded to the scene of a domestic violence call. The domestic violence involved Jeannette Patrice and her then husband, James Roth, both of whom are deaf. There was no qualified American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter present. The officers communicated with Patrice and Roth using written notes. A written statement was taken from Patrice. After questioning the parties in this manner, Patrice was arrested and charged with fourth degree assault, domestic violence. The criminal charge is not before this court.

In early 1997, Patrice commenced suit in the United States District Court, Western District of Washington against two defendant groups: Snohomish County and several of its officials, and the City of Snohomish and several of its officials (City Defendants), alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131-12133; the Federal Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1983; and several state law tort theories. Snohomish County and its county officials are no longer parties to this specific matter. Within her state law tort theories, Patrice alleges a violation of RCW 2.42.120, an act amending Washington's interpretation statute. Specifically, Patrice contends that the failure to provide Patrice with a qualified ASL interpreter during administration of her Miranda 2 rights and during her interrogation violated her rights under RCW 2.42.120. Patrice's claim is based on sections (4) and (5) of RCW 2.42.120, which provide:

Page 849

4) If a law enforcement agency conducts a criminal investigation involving the interviewing of a hearing impaired person, whether as a victim, witness, or suspect, the appointing authority shall appoint and pay for a qualified interpreter throughout the investigation. Whenever a law enforcement agency conducts a criminal investigation involving the interviewing of a minor child whose parent, guardian, or custodian is hearing impaired, whether as a victim, witness, or suspect, the appointing authority shall appoint and pay for a qualified interpreter throughout the investigation. No employee of the law enforcement agency who has responsibilities other [966 P.2d 1273] than interpreting may be appointed as the qualified interpreter.

(5) If a hearing impaired person is arrested for an alleged violation of a criminal law the arresting officer or the officer's supervisor shall, at the earliest possible time, procure and arrange payment for a qualified interpreter for any notification of rights, warning, interrogation, or taking of a statement. No employee of the law enforcement agency who has responsibilities other than interpreting may be appointed as the qualified interpreter.

Patrice moved for partial summary judgment, requesting the United States District Court declare the arresting officers violated RCW 2.42.120. City Defendants, in their opposition to Patrice's motion, argued the enactment of RCW 2.42.120 violates the Washington State Constitution. City Defendants further filed two motions: a motion for certification to this court and a cross motion for summary judgment.

On March 11, 1998, the Honorable Carolyn R. Dimmick granted by order the motion by City Defendants seeking certification. Judge Dimmick certified two questions of state law to the court, only one of which remains viable.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY

RCW 2.42.120 was introduced on February 8, 1985 into the Washington State Legislature as Senate Bill 4155. At the time the bill was introduced, its title read: "AN ACT Relating to court costs; and amending RCW 10.01.160"

Page 850

(RCW 10.01.160 is contained in the criminal procedure act and concerns "costs"). Senate Journal, 49th Leg., Reg. Sess. 262 (1985). Senate Bill 4155's description was limited to "[c]hanging [the] definition of court costs a convicted defendant may be required to pay." Senate Journal at 375. In this form, it added only the following new language to RCW 10.01.160: "Expenses incurred for serving of warrants for failure to appear may be included in costs the court may require a convicted defendant to pay." S. 4155, 49th Leg., Reg. Sess. 1 (1985). There was no language in the bill concerning either sign language interpreters or police investigations. It was in this form that the Senate passed the bill, ordering the title of the bill to stand as the title of the act. Senate Journal at 502. The bill was then sent to the House of Representatives for action.

House Bill 421, containing provisions relating to the appointment of interpreters for the hearing impaired, had been introduced into the House of Representatives on February 1,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 practice notes
  • City of Fircrest v. Jensen, No. 76738-6.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 5, 2006
    ...violation of this constitutional mandate, the courts will not hesitate to declare them void. Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 851-52, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998) (quoting State ex rel. Wash. Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 32 Wash.2d 13, 24, 200 P.2d 467 (1948)). Violation of either the single-subj......
  • STATE EX REL.(CAT) v. Murphy, No. 73745-2.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 8, 2004
    ...prohibitions in article II, section 19. Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wash.2d at 207, 11 P.3d 762; Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 852, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998). The first is that no bill shall embrace more than one subject (the single-subject rule). The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent......
  • Amalgamated Transit v. State, No. 69433-8.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 26, 2000
    ...dissenting and concurring opinions). There are two distinct prohibitions in art. II, § 19. See Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 852, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998). The first is that no bill shall embrace more than one subject. The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent logrolling or pushing le......
  • Pierce County v. State, No. 34423-8-II.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • May 28, 2008
    ...title" requirement is sufficient to render the relevant bill provisions unconstitutional. Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 852, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998). But we construe article II, section 19 liberally in favor of upholding the legislation. Murphy, 151 Wash.2d at 249, 88 P.3d 375. We p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 cases
  • City of Fircrest v. Jensen, No. 76738-6.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 5, 2006
    ...violation of this constitutional mandate, the courts will not hesitate to declare them void. Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 851-52, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998) (quoting State ex rel. Wash. Toll Bridge Auth. v. Yelle, 32 Wash.2d 13, 24, 200 P.2d 467 (1948)). Violation of either the single-subj......
  • STATE EX REL.(CAT) v. Murphy, No. 73745-2.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 8, 2004
    ...prohibitions in article II, section 19. Amalgamated Transit, 142 Wash.2d at 207, 11 P.3d 762; Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 852, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998). The first is that no bill shall embrace more than one subject (the single-subject rule). The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent......
  • Amalgamated Transit v. State, No. 69433-8.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • October 26, 2000
    ...dissenting and concurring opinions). There are two distinct prohibitions in art. II, § 19. See Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 852, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998). The first is that no bill shall embrace more than one subject. The purpose of this prohibition is to prevent logrolling or pushing le......
  • Pierce County v. State, No. 34423-8-II.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Washington
    • May 28, 2008
    ...title" requirement is sufficient to render the relevant bill provisions unconstitutional. Patrice v. Murphy, 136 Wash.2d 845, 852, 966 P.2d 1271 (1998). But we construe article II, section 19 liberally in favor of upholding the legislation. Murphy, 151 Wash.2d at 249, 88 P.3d 375. We p......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT