71296-4
- Linda Eggleston
v.
Pierce County
712964MAJ
~
Supreme Court of the State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 71296-4
Title of Case: Linda Eggleston
v.
Pierce County
File Date: 03/06/2003
Oral Argument Date: 06/25/2002
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of Pierce County
Docket No: 98-2-11198-0
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 06/19/2001
Judge signing: Hon. Marywave Van Deren
JUSTICES
--------
Authored by Tom Chambers
Concurring: Charles Z. Smith
Charles W. Johnson
Barbara A. Madsen
Bobbe J. Bridge
Susan J. Owens
Faith E Ireland
Dissenting: Gerry L. Alexander
Richard B. Sanders
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
Timothy K. Ford
Macdonald Hoague & Bayless
705 2nd Avenue Ste 1500
Seattle, WA 98104-1745
Maria C. Fox
705 2nd Ave Ste 1500
Seattle, WA 98104
Counsel for Respondent(s)
John W. Ladenburg, Jr.
Burgess Fitzer PS
1501 Market St Ste 300
Tacoma, WA 98402
John T. Kugler
Burgess Fitzer PS
1501 Market St-Suite 300
Tacoma, WA 98402-3311
Amicus Curiae on behalf of American Civil Liberties
Timothy H. Butler
Heller Ehrman White & McAuliffe
701 5th Ave Ste 6100
Seattle, WA 98104-7098
John M. Geyman
Heller Ehrman White & McAulifee
701 5th Ave #6100
Seattle, WA 98104
David J. Ward
701 5th Ave Ste 6100
Seattle, WA 98104
Charles F. Wilkinson
717 34th Ave
Seattle, WA 98122-5131
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Association of Prosecutin
Pamela B. Loginsky
Wa Assoc.OF Pros. Attny
206 10th Ave SE
Olympia, WA 98501-0000
Amicus Curiae on behalf of Building Industry association of Was
John M. Groen
Groen Stephens & Klinge Llp
2101 112th Ave NE
Suite 110
Bellevue, WA 98004-2944
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
LINDA EGGLESTON )
)
Appellant, ) No. 71296-4
)
v. ) En Banc
)
PIERCE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, )
MYRON SMITH, RANDY SWEEM, )
ROGER GOOCH, and BEN BENSON, )
)
Respondents. ) Filed March 6, 2003
)
CHAMBERS, J. Linda Eggleston's home was rendered uninhabitable by
the execution of a criminal search warrant and preservation order. She
sought relief in state and federal court for alleged civil rights
violations, including violation of article I, section 16 of the Washington
State Constitution. Her claims in federal court have been stayed, and the
Pierce County Superior Court dismissed her article I, section 16 claim at
summary judgment. Today, we are asked only to determine whether she has
suffered a compensable takings under article I, section 16 of the
Washington State Constitution. We conclude she has not, and affirm.
FACTS
Mrs. Eggleston inherited a two-bedroom Tacoma home from her father in 1977.
Mrs. Eggleston lived there with her adult son Brian Eggleston. Pierce
County sheriffs received a tip that Brian was dealing drugs and placed the
home under surveillance. Based on that surveillance, sheriffs obtained a
search warrant. For safety reasons, officers decided to serve the warrants
early in the morning of October 16, 1995. The team assembled at a nearby
fire station and proceeded to the unlocked house. Sheriff's deputies
entered the house, a fire fight broke out, and one officer lost his life.
Brian was arrested and charged with murder, assault, and various drug
crimes. A law enforcement team specializing in homicide investigations
searched the home and found drugs, cash, weapons, and drug paraphernalia.1
Brian has since been convicted of drug dealing, and awaits retrial on other
charges. State v. Eggleston, noted at 108 Wn. App. 1011, 2001 WL 1077846,
at *1 (2001). That night, an officer took Mrs. Eggleston to her
mother's mobile home. The parties disagree whether Mrs. Eggleston could
have moved home after the homicide team completed its search that evening.
Brian's defense counsel suggested she not go home until investigations were
complete.
On April 15, 1996, the trial court signed a search warrant authorizing the
seizure of evidence pertaining to the murder from Mrs. Eggleston's house.
The search warrant specifically authorized the police to collect:
Video tapes of police television shows, blood samples, gunshot residue, bed
sheet with bloody hand print, two upholstered chairs with bloodstains,
{c}ollection of trace evidence. Any other evidence discovered during the
reconstruction of the crime scene and documentation of the process with
photographs and video taping, measuring, vacuuming, or other evidence
techniques necessary to reconstruct the crime scene.
Clerk's Papers (CP) at 264. The search warrant commanded the officers to
'diligently search for any evidence, and any other, and if . . . evidence
material to the investigation or prosecution of said felony . . . be found
. . . bring the same forthwith before me, to be disposed of according to
law.' CP at 264.
Leaving a copy of the warrant on the family piano, officers collected
evidence, including two walls. One wall was a load bearing wall, leaving
the house unstable and uninhabitable. Two months later the trial judge
issued an order prohibiting 'the defense, and any person acting on behalf
of the defendant' from 'destroying any item of possible evidentiary value'
and 'preserv{ing} the scene which is the location of the acts . . . in its
entirety.' CP at 127.2 Mrs. Eggleston has cooperated with this order and
has lived in her mother's mobile home ever since. She has not asked the
trial court to modify this order to make it less burdensome upon her.
While the attorneys discussed whether Mrs. Eggleston should be allowed to
move back into her home, 'it was kind of in limbo.' CP at 282.
Brian has been charged and tried for murder, assault, and drug crimes.
The first jury found him guilty of the drug and assault charges but
deadlocked on murder; the second jury convicted him of second degree
murder. See Eggleston, 2001 WL 1077846, at *2. Both juries were taken to
the house. The removed walls have not been used as evidence. The Court of
Appeals reversed the assault and murder convictions and remanded for a new
trial. Eggleston, 2001 WL 1077846, at **1, 34. The order preserving the
scene will remain in effect until either vacated or modified, or until the
criminal case is complete.
Mrs. Eggleston has not been charged with any crime. Her income
consists of $500 a month in social security benefits, $420 of which is
dedicated to the rent on her mother's mobile home. In 1998, she filed a
claim for damages with Pierce County. Pierce County rejected her claim.
She then brought suit in state and federal court for the destruction and
loss of use of her property under several theories, including takings under
the Washington and United States Constitutions. Respondent Pierce County
removed her state claims to federal court. The federal court issued a stay
covering her federal claims and returned the state takings claim to the
Pierce County Superior Court. Eggleston v. Pierce County, 99 F. Supp. 2d
1280, 1283 (W.D. Wash. 2000).3 This state takings claim is the only issue
before us.
Each party moved for summary judgment. The trial court judge granted
summary judgment to the county. We accepted direct review.
ANALYSIS4
We are mindful that Mrs. Eggleston has suffered a tragic loss of real
property. Her loss may be compensable under a variety of theories not
before us, including violation of the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution. She has pleaded facts that
might give rise to a substantive due process claim. But her claim is not a
cognizable takings.
Article I, section 16 is significantly different from its United
States constitutional counterpart, and in some ways provides greater
protection. See, e.g., Mfr'd Hous. Cmtys.of Wash. v. State, 142 Wn.2d 347,
356 n.7, 13 P.3d 183 (2000). Generally, we require the parties to present a
Gunwall analysis (State v. Gunwall, 106 Wn.2d 54, 720 P.2d 808 (1986))
before we will consider their state constitutional contentions. See Mfr'd
Hous., 142 Wn.2d at 356 n.7. However, in this case, we find that neither
party was prejudiced by the lack of an early Gunwall analysis, and reach
the substantive claim.5
The power and the obligation of eminent domain plays a critical role
in constitutional governance, and courts are obligated to carefully monitor
its exercise. The State is vested with the power to take real property for
public use, but must compensate the owner appropriately. Const. art. I,
sec. 16. Similarly, '{p}olice power is inherent in the state by virtue of
its granted sovereignty.' Mfr'd Hous., 142 Wn.2d at 354. The State is
vested with the power to regulate for the health, safety, morals, and
general welfare, and the burdens imposed incidental to such regulations are
not takings unless the burdens manifest in certain, enumerated ways. See
Guimont v. Clarke, 121 Wn.2d 586, 854 P.2d 1 (1993) (articulating
analytical framework for evaluating substantive due process, per se and
regulatory takings claims); Conger v. Pierce County, 116 Wash. 27, 36, 198
P. 377 (1921); Tahoe-Sierra Pres. Council, Inc., v. Tahoe Reg'l Planning
Agency, 535 U.S. 302, 122 S. Ct. 1465, 152 L. Ed. 2d. 517 (2002)
(articulating requirements for federal regulatory takings); cf. Mugler v.
Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668-69, 8 S. Ct. 273, 31 L. Ed. 205 (1887) (giving
historical view).
Police power and the power of eminent domain are essential and
distinct powers of government. Mfr'd Hous., 142 Wn.2d at 354; State ex rel.
Long v. Superior Court, 80 Wash. 417, 419, 141 P. 906 (1914); see generally
William B. Stoebuck, A General Theory of Eminent Domain, 47 Wash. L. Rev.
553, 553-63 (1972). Courts have long looked behind labels to determine
whether a particular exercise of power was properly characterized as police
power or eminent domain.6 See, e.g., Conger, 116 Wash. 27. But clearly,
not every government action that takes, damages, or destroys property is a
taking. 'Eminent domain takes private property for a public use, while the
police power regulates its use and enjoyment, or if it takes or damages it,
it is not a taking or damaging for the public use, but to conserve the
safety, morals, health and general welfare of the public.' Conger, 116
Wash. at 36 (emphasis added). The gathering and preserving of evidence is a
police power function, necessary for the safety and general welfare of
society. Cf. Conger, 116 Wash at 36.
Our constitution provides:
Eminent Domain. Private property shall not be taken for private use, except
for private ways of necessity, and for drains, flumes, or ditches on or
across the lands of others for agricultural, domestic, or sanitary
purposes. No private property shall be taken or damaged for public or
private use without just compensation having been first made, or paid into
court for the owner, and no right-of-way shall be appropriated to the use
of any corporation other than municipal until full compensation therefor be
first made in money, or ascertained and paid into court for the owner,
irrespective of any benefit from any improvement proposed by such
corporation, which compensation shall be ascertained by a jury, unless a
jury be waived, as in other civil cases in courts of record, in the manner
prescribed by law. Whenever an attempt is made to take private property for
a use alleged to be public, the question whether the contemplated use be
really public shall be a judicial question, and determined as such, without
regard to any legislative assertion that the use is public: Provided, That
the taking of private property by the state for land reclamation and
settlement purposes is hereby declared to be for public use.
Const. art. I, sec. 16. The words of the constitution are interpreted as
they would have been commonly understood at the time the constitution was
ratified. State v. Brunn, 22 Wn.2d 120, 139, 154 P.2d 826 (1945). Based
on the principles underlying our jurisprudence and evidence from an 1886
Oregon Supreme Court case, we conclude that in 1889, the production of
evidence or testimony would not have been considered a taking.
In 1886, the Oregon Supreme Court determined that their takings clause
(which included a prohibition on claiming the 'particular services' of any
man) did not require the state to compensate a witness for his testimony.
Daly v. Multnomah County, 14 Or. 20, 12 P. 11 (1886). The Oregon court
found the duty to provide testimony inherent in citizenship and concluded
that duty was categorically distinct from any right to receive compensation
under the takings clause. Daly, 14 Or. at 21 (quoting Israel v. State, 8
Ind. 467 (1856)); accord Blair v. United States, 250 U.S. 273, 281, 39 S.
Ct. 468, 63 L. Ed. 979 (1919). The same principle applies to the
production of evidence. Petitioner has not demonstrated that in 1889, the
citizens of Washington would have understood the principles underlying
police power and takings significantly differently from the way they were
understood by our Oregon neighbors. Therefore we conclude that in 1889,
the duty to provide evidence would have not have given rise to a
compensable taking.
Article I, section 16 requires prior compensation. It would be
administratively awkward (and constitutionally unlikely) to require prior
compensation for the destruction of property by police while apprehending a
suspect or executing a search warrant. This is further evidence that
article I, section 16 did not, in 1889 (or 1920 when it was amended), reach
such claims. Further, the Washington State Constitution specifically
states '{n}o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home
invaded, without authority of law,' clearly evincing that from the
beginning of our history the state has had the power to invade homes with
the authority of law. Const. art. I, sec. 7 (emphasis added). Our state
constitution does not provide for compensation for an article I section 7
search; more evidence the takings clause would not originally have been
understood to cover this sort of claim.7
While this is a case of first impression in Washington, several of our
sister states have already wrestled with it. After a careful survey, we
are aware of no case that holds or even supports the proposition that the
seizure or preservation of evidence can be a taking. Again, Oregon has
considered the issue and declined to find a cognizable taking under its
state constitution when evidence is substantially destroyed during a
criminal investigation and prosecution. Emery v. Oregon, 297 Or. 755, 688
P.2d 72 (1984).
Emery considered the takings claim of a criminal defendant and his
mother, co-owners of a pickup truck that was the site of a murder. Emery,
297 Or. at 757. As part of the investigation and prosecution of that
murder, the truck was seized and dismantled. Id. It was returned to the
defendant - still dismantled. Id. The Oregon Supreme Court found no
takings. It ruled:
'If a person, by virtue of his very existence in civilized society,
owes a duty to the community to disclose for the purposes of justice all
that is in his control which can serve the ascertainment of the truth, this
duty includes not only mental impressions preserved in his brain and the
documents preserved in his hands, but also . . . the chattels and premises
within his control. There can be no discrimination. . . .
'Apart from specific privileges, ***, a person is bound, if required
to furnish . . . his premises to the inspection of the tribunal or its
duly delegated officers, and to do or exhibit any other thing which may in
any form furnish evidence."
Emery, 297 Or. at 765-66 (footnote omitted) (quoting 8 John Henry Wigmore,
Evidence sec. 2194, at 76 (John T. McNaughton rev., 1961)). Accord Alaska
Dep't of Natural Res. v. Arctic Slope Reg'l Corp., 834 P.2d 134 (Alaska
1991) (no takings to require disclosure of a secret oil database);
McCambridge v. City of Little Rock, 298 Ark. 219, 227-28, 766 S.W.2d 909
(1989) (seizure of evidence not a takings); McCoy v. Sanders, 113 Ga. App.
565, 148 S.E.2d 902 (1966) (no takings to drain a pond to look for a body);
cf. City & County of Denver v. Desert Truck Sales, Inc., 837 P.2d 759
(Colo. 1992) (no takings to seize truck for failure to display proper
identification). Under the Oregon approach, no takings could arise from
the execution of the warrant or preservation order. Nor could a takings be
found in property damage caused by the investigation.
Similarly, the New Hampshire Supreme Court considered and rejected a
claim that an order blocking the repair of an apartment during an arson
trial was a taking. Soucy v. New Hampshire, 127 N.H. 451, 452, 506 A.2d 288
(1985) (Souter, J., writing). It also relied on Wigmore:
'For more than three centuries it has now been recognized as a
fundamental maxim that the public . . . has a right to every man's
evidence.'
'{i}t may be a sacrifice of time and labor, and thus of ease, of
profits, of livelihood. This contribution is not to be regarded as a
gratuity, or a courtesy, or an ill-required favor. It is a duty not to be
grudged or evaded. Whoever is impelled to evade or to resent it should
retire from the society of organized and civilized communities, and become
a hermit. He who will live by society must let society live by him, when
it requires to.'
Soucy, 127 N.H. at 455-56 (citations omitted) (quoting 8 Wigmore, supra,
sec. 2192, at 70, 72). While the New Hampshire Supreme Court found no
takings, it was sympathetic, as are we, to the burden imposed on the
property owner. The court counseled that a 'property owner's remedy lies .
. . in this court's authority to entertain a request for prospective
review of such an order in any apparently egregious case.' Soucy, 127 N.H.
at 458. We agree. But we find no takings under the state constitution
based on the seizure and preservation of evidence.
A harder question is whether the destruction of property by police
activity other than collecting evidence pursuant to a warrant could ever be
a compensable taking. Courts considering this issue are divided. See
generally, David M. Neuenhaus, State Constitutional Takings Jurisprudence,
24 Rutgers L.J. 1352 (1992) (collecting cases). In Customer Co. v. City of
Sacramento, 10 Cal. 4th 368, 895 P.2d 900 (1995), the California Supreme
Court rejected a claim that property destruction during the course of
apprehending a suspect could be a taking under the California Constitution.8
Id. at 370. After an exhaustive survey of the history and development of
takings, the court concluded that the takings clause was never 'applied in
a literal manner, without regard to the history or intent of the provision
. . . {and was not} intended, and never has been interpreted, to impose a
constitutional obligation upon the government to pay 'just compensation'
whenever a governmental employee commits an act that causes loss of private
property.' Id. at 378. Accord Kelley v. Story County Sheriff, 611 N.W.2d
475, 477 (Iowa 2000) (valid exercise of police power and not a compensable
takings to breakdown doors of an innocent property owner to serve a
warrant).
The three states that have found a taking in the destruction of
property by police during an arrest have rested on fairness and the
continued blurring of police power and eminent domain.9 The first state to
find a potential cause of action under somewhat analogous circumstances was
Texas. Steele v. City of Houston, 603 S.W.2d 786 (Tex. 1980).10 Texas
police had burned down an innocent person's home to eject suspects. Id. at
788. The Texas Supreme Court found that this was not inverse condemnation,
but was nonetheless a taking. Id. at 789. 'Recent decisions by this
court have broadly applied the underlying rationale to takings by refusing
to differentiate between an exercise of police power, which excused
compensation, and eminent domain, which required compensation.' Id. at 789
(emphasis added).
The Minnesota Supreme Court relied on this holding in a similar case.
See Wegner v. Milwaukee Mut. Ins. Co., 479 N.W.2d 38 (Minn. 1991).11 Police
had used tear gas and grenades to drive a suspect from an innocent person's
home, wreaking extensive damage. Id. at 38. The Minnesota high court
found a cognizable takings claim. Id. Minnesota found its takings clause
was designed to prevent burdens society should bear from being forced onto
specific individuals, and not restricted to eminent domain. Id. at 39, 41-
42; accord Wallace v. City of Atlantic City, 257 N.J. Super. 404, 608 A.2d
480 (Law Div. 1992).
A clear split on clear grounds exists. Those courts rejecting takings
claims based on police destruction of property have relied on the original
understanding of the constitutions and the continuing vitality of the
separate doctrines of eminent domain and police power. The courts that have
found takings have been justifiably outraged by the destruction of real
property owned by third parties utterly unconnected with the alleged crime.
While we too feel the pull of the justness of the cause, the vehicle is not
article I, section 16. We decline to abandon the framework established by
our constitution. Accord Brunn, 22 Wn.2d at 139. The proper apportionment
of the burdens and benefits of public life are best addressed to the
legislature, absent a violation of a right held by an individual seeking
redress under the appropriate vehicle.
We turn briefly to the federal case law on point. The United States
Supreme Court has admonished that the takings clause must be read against
the historical background of rights and obligations. ''{a}s long
recognized, some values are enjoyed under an implied limitation and must
yield to the police power.'' Lucas v. S.C. Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003,
1027, 112 S. Ct. 2886, 120 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1992) (quoting Pa. Coal Co. v.
Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 413, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. 322 (1922)). The federal
courts have considered the question of whether the seizure of evidence is a
taking under federal constitutional law, and it appears to us that they
would not find the injury to Mrs. Eggleston to be a takings.
The leading case is Hurtado v. United States, 410 U.S. 578, 93 S. Ct.
1157, 35 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1973). In that case, material witnesses were
jailed to assure their appearance in a criminal trial. The detained
witnesses brought suit for compensation under the Fifth Amendment, alleging
that their property interest in their own time and liberty had been taken.
Hurtado, 410 U.S. at 579. The United States Supreme Court ruled that every
person has a duty to provide evidence, and the Fifth Amendment does not
require the government pay for the performance of a public duty already
owed:
It is beyond dispute that there is in fact a public obligation to provide
evidence and that this obligation persists no matter how financially
burdensome it may be. '. . . {T}he giving of testimony and the attendance
upon court . . . in order to testify are public duties which every person
within the jurisdiction of the Government is bound to perform . . . and for
the performance of which he is entitled to no further compensation than
that which the statutes provide. The personal sacrifice involved is a part
of the necessary contribution of the individual to the welfare of the
public.' Blair v. United States, 250 U. S. 273, 281{, 39 S. Ct. 468, 63 L.
Ed. 979 (1919)}.
Hurtado, 410 U.S. at 589 (footnote and citations omitted); accord United
States v. Friedman, 532 F.2d 928 (3d Cir. 1976).
Similarly, the Fifth Circuit found no takings in the seizure of
evidence. The widow of Lee Harvey Oswald sought to recover the value of
items of personal property seized in the investigation of President John F.
Kennedy's assassination. Porter v. United States, 473 F.2d 1329 (5th Cir.
1973). Subsequent to the seizure of the evidence, Congress enacted
legislation to appropriate the items and to pay fair compensation. The
parties did not dispute that there had been a taking; the primary issue was
when the taking took place, since the value of the evidence changed during
the course of the investigation. The Fifth Circuit rejected the argument
that the takings occurred when the evidence was seized. Id. at 1335.
Instead, it ruled that the takings occurred when the government declared
its intent to acquire the property for its own. Id. at 1336. 'Up until
then the government might very well have returned that which it had seized
. . . .' Id. Under Porter, merely holding evidence during an
investigation does not constitute a taking.
When law enforcement exceeds its lawful powers, the injured have a
right to redress. But if this occurred that October day, there are other,
more suitable, remedies available. Extending takings to cover this alleged
deprivation of rights would do significant injury to our constitutional
system. We stress we do not examine the applicability of substantive or
procedural due process, the fourth, fifth, or fourteenth amendments to the
United States Constitution, Washington Constitution article I, section 7,
arbitrary and capricious government action, outrage, trespass, 42 U.S.C.
sec. 1983, or any other cause of action that might be brought. It may be
that all would fail. We also stress that we have not been asked to review
or limit the preservation order to ease the burden on Mrs. Eggleston. We
instruct courts below that such orders must be as unobtrusive and as
bearable as possible. See, e.g., Soucy, 127 N.H. at 458; accord United
States v. Columbia Broad. Sys., 666 F.2d 364, 371-72 (9th Cir. 1982)
(recognizing equitable power in civil cases to allocate cost of discovery
for nonparty witnesses to demanding party); Feigin v. Colo. Nat'l Bank,
N.A., 897 P.2d 814, 820 (Colo. 1995) (recognizing the court's equitable
power to moderate subpoena that is unreasonable or oppressive).
Summary judgment is affirmed.
WE CONCUR:
1 Brian Eggleston challenged the constitutionality of this search in his
criminal trial, and Mrs. Eggleston challenges it separately in federal
court. See State v. Eggleston, at 108 Wn. App. 1011, 2001 WL 1077846, at
**13-14 (2001); Eggleston v. Pierce County, 99 F. Supp. 2d 1280 (W.D. Wash.
2000) (stayed federal court proceeding). The Court of Appeals noted that
the October 16, 1995 search was warrantless, but ruled that any evidence
that would have been discovered under the original drug warrant would be
admissible. Eggleston, 2001 WL 1077846, at *14. The reasonableness of the
search is not before us.
2 The order recites:
THIS MATTER having come on regularly before the above-entitled court
upon the motion of defendant to prevent the State of Washington from
attempting to obtain a search warrant to enter the crime scene and/or to
seize evidence therefore; and upon the motion of the State of Washington,
plaintiff herein, to require the defense to preserve the crime scene intact
and to refrain from destruction of any items of possible evidentary value
pending further order of this Court; and the court being familiar with the
records and files herein, having heard argument of counsel, and being of
the opinion that such an Order should issue, and having verbally entered
these orders on June 13, 1996; it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the plaintiff, State of Washington,
shall not apply for or obtain a search warrant to enter the crime scene or
to seize evidence from said crime scene; it is further
ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the defense, and any person acting
on behalf of the defendant, is hereby restrained and prohibited from
destroying any item of possible evidentiary value which is related to the
incident which gave rise to the charges herein; and the defense is hereby
ordered to preserve the scene which is the location of the acts which gave
rise to the charges herein in its entirety and to prevent any individual
from destroying any item of potential evidentiary value from said scene.
CP at 126-27 (Order Requiring Preservation of Scene & Prohibiting Search
Warrant).
3 The federal district court found it an inappropriate breach of comity to
reach the claims based on the Fourth Amendment until Brian Eggleston's
criminal trial and appeal were concluded. Eggleston, 99 F. Supp. 2d at
1282. This determination was upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
in an unpublished opinion. The court also found it inappropriate to reach
the federal takings claim until our state courts had an opportunity to
consider the issue under our own constitution. Id. Mrs. Eggleston is, of
course, free to pursue her federal claims in federal court as they ripen
and as comity concerns fade.
4 This case is here on summary judgment, presenting only questions of law.
Review is de novo. Rivett v. City of Tacoma, 123 Wn.2d 573, 578, 870 P.2d
299 (1994).
5 Further, a satisfactory Gunwall analysis was provided by an amicus, and
we find that the threshold function Gunwall performs is less necessary when
we have already established a state constitutional provision provides more
protection than its federal counterpart. Accord State v. White, 135 Wn.2d
761, 769, 958 P.2d 982 (1998).
6 We recognize 'police power' has been used elastically and imprecisely
since adoption of our constitution in 1889. See, e.g., Hugh D. Spitzer,
Municipal Police Power in Washington State, 75 Wash. L. Rev. 495 (2000).
Therefore, for the purpose of our taking analysis the term must be
understood in the more limited sense as it was then, not necessarily now.
Moreover, we also recognize even a legitimate exercise of police power, as
those terms were understood in 1889, may also result in a compensable
taking where the regulation goes 'too far.' Pa. Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260
U.S. 393, 43 S. Ct. 158, 67 L. Ed. 322 (1922).
7 The parties do not address the relevance, if any, of the judiciary's
independent constitutional authority to enter preservation orders or search
and arrest warrants. Clearly, the judiciary can not exercise eminent
domain and may rearrange property rights in accordance with law without it
being a taking of property. See Wash. Const. art. IV; State v. Fields, 85
Wn.2d 126, 530 P.2d 284 (1975); RCW 2.04.190 ('The supreme court shall have
the power to prescribe . . . {the process} of taking and obtaining
evidence.').
8 The California Constitution says in part: 'Private property may be taken
or damaged for public use only when just compensation . . . has first been
paid.' Cal. Const. art. I, sec. 19. The California Supreme Court's opinion
is especially important to our analysis since because its takings clause
was a model for our own. Robert F. Utter & Hugh D. Spitzer, The Washington
State Constitution: A Reference Guide 30 (2002).
9 See generally Arvo Van Alstyne, Inverse Condemnation: Unintended Physical
Damage 20 Hastings L. J. 431 (1969); Arvo Van Alstyne, Statutory
Modification of Inverse Condemnation: Deliberately Inflicted Injury or
Destruction, 20 Stan. L. Rev. 617 (1968); Louise A. Halper, Tropes of
Anxiety and Desire: Metaphor and Metonymy in the Law of Takings, 8 Yale J.
L. Human. 31 (1996); Glynn S. Lunney, Jr., Article, A Critical
Reexamination of the Takings Jurisprudence, 90 Mich. L. Rev. 1892 (1992);
C. Wayne Owen, Jr., Everyone Benefits, Everyone Pays: Does the Fifth
Amendment Mandate Compensation when Property is Damaged During the Course
of Police Activities? 9 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 277 (2000); Frank J.
Wozniak, Right to Compensation for Real Property Damaged by Law Enforcement
Personnel in Course of Apprehending Suspect, 23 A.L.R.5th 834 (1994).
10 The Texas constitution provides in relevant part: 'No person's property
shall be taken, damaged or destroyed for or applied to public use without
adequate compensation being made.' Tex. Const. art. I, sec. 17.
11 Minn. Const. art. I, sec. 13 reads: 'Private property shall not be taken,
destroyed or damaged for public use without just compensation therefor,
first paid or secured.'
>>