 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Roy v. City of Everett2/6/1992
from liability for their alleged failure to fund, create, and monitor appropriate training programs for officers, as set out in Roy's fifth cause of action. I would also hold that the qualified immunity of RCW 10.99.070 shields particular officers for the individual conduct of which Roy complains, because she does not allege, nor does the record reflect, that the officers acted in bad faith.
Constitutional Challenges to RCW 10.99.070
Roy and the amici allege that any interpretation of RCW 10.99.070 which is broader than the trial court's, such as the interpretation I advance, violates article 1, section 12 of the state constitution, the fourteenth amendment to the federal constitution, and the Equal Rights Amendment, Const. art. 31, § 1. Article 1, section 12 provides that:
No law shall be passed granting to any citizen, class of citizens, or corporation other than municipal, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens, or corporations.
The purpose of the article is to:
secure equality of treatment to all persons without undue favor . . . or hostile discrimination . . . . Compliance with this . . . purpose requires that the legislation under examination apply alike to all persons within a class, and reasonable ground must exist for making a distinction between those within and those without a designated class.
Faxe v. Grandview, 48 Wash. 2d 342, 348, 294 P.2d 402 (1956). The fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution provides that no state:
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; . . . nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The privileges and immunities clause of the Washington State Constitution and the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are substantially identical and have been considered by this court as one equal protection issue. American Network, Inc. v. Utilities & Transp. Comm'n, 113 Wash. 2d 59, 77, 776 P.2d 950 (1989); Hanson v. Hutt, 83 Wash. 2d 195, 200-01, 517 P.2d 599 (1973).
At the outset of an equal protection analysis under article 1, section 12 and the Fourteenth Amendment, the court defines the standard of review against which to test the challenged legislation. State v. Rice, 98 Wash. 2d 384, 399, 655 P.2d 1145 (1982). Two tests are used to judicially measure classifications alleged to violate equal protection: the strict scrutiny and the rational relationship tests. State v. Rice, supra. In either case, a statute that is facially neutral, but allegedly results in an unequal application of the law, does not violate the equal protection guaranties of the state or federal constitution unless the party challenging the statute shows an element of intentional or purposeful discrimination. Macias v. Department of Labor & Indus., 100 Wash. 2d 263, 269-70, 668 P.2d 1278 (1983); State v. Nixon, 10 Wash. App. 355, 358, 517 P.2d 212 (1973), review denied, 83 Wash. 2d 1014 (1974).
Roy and the amici concede that RCW 10.99.070 is facially neutral, but they contend that a broad interpretation of the immunity provision violates equal protection unde
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Washington DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|