driving privilege in Washington

12 Washington opinions name it 2 courts 1979–2020 0 in the last five years

The cases below were cited by Washington courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.

Followed or applied (6)

Case	Followed	Cited
Crawford v. Washingtongreen scotus · 2004 · cited in 3 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2012 2 sentences 2012But, the Court declined to provide “a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” id. at 68 , leaving courts to “develop [ ] their own interpretation of what is a ‘testimonial statement’ for Sixth Amendment purposes.” United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2010). ¶25 In the companion cases of Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , and Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , we considered whether affidavits certifying the status of a defendant’s driving privilege are testimonial statements covered by the Sixth Amendment. 2007See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51 (explaining that the proper focus of confrontation clause is on “ ‘witnesses against the accused ... those who bear testimony... [a]n accuser’ ” (quoting 2 Noah Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828))).	2	3
State v. Kronichgreen wash · 2007 · cited in 2 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2019 2 sentences 2019In Kronich , we held that affidavits certifying the status of a defendant's driving privilege were nontestimonial for purposes of confrontation clause protections. 160 Wash.2d at 902-04 , 161 P.3d 982 . 2007Cf. Kirkpatrick, ___ Wash. at ___-___, 161 P.3d at 996-97 , 2007 WL 2003401 (finding no reason to treat certification of the absence of a driver's license differently from certification of the existence of a license).	1	2
United States v. Martinez-Riosgreen ca5 · 2010 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2012–2012 1 sentence 2012But, the Court declined to provide “a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” id. at 68 , leaving courts to “develop [ ] their own interpretation of what is a ‘testimonial statement’ for Sixth Amendment purposes.” United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2010). ¶25 In the companion cases of Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , and Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , we considered whether affidavits certifying the status of a defendant’s driving privilege are testimonial statements covered by the Sixth Amendment.	1	1
State v. Smithgreen washctapp · 2004 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007 2 sentences 2007Id. at 705 (alteration in original). 2007Rather, the records custodian “simply communicated [Smith’s] driving status as reflected in DOL’s computer records.” Id. 7 Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant’s driving privilege had been revoked “contain [ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.” 98 Wn.	1	1
State v. Rossgreen washctapp · 1999 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002	1	1
State v. Gluckgreen wash · 1974 · cited in 1 Washington opinions naming this issue, 1979–1979	1	1

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

Case	Negative	Cited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Washington. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (34)

Case	Cited	Years
State v. Kronich green wash · 2007 2 sentences 2019In Kronich , we held that affidavits certifying the status of a defendant's driving privilege were nontestimonial for purposes of confrontation clause protections. 160 Wash.2d at 902-04 , 161 P.3d 982 . 2012But, the Court declined to provide “a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” id. at 68 , leaving courts to “develop [ ] their own interpretation of what is a ‘testimonial statement’ for Sixth Amendment purposes.” United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2010). ¶25 In the companion cases of Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , and Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , we considered whether affidavits certifying the status of a defendant’s driving privilege are testimonial statements covered by the Sixth Amendment.	2	2012–2019
State v. Kirkpatrick green wash · 2007 2 sentences 2012But, the Court declined to provide “a comprehensive definition of ‘testimonial,’ ” id. at 68 , leaving courts to “develop [ ] their own interpretation of what is a ‘testimonial statement’ for Sixth Amendment purposes.” United States v. Martinez-Rios, 595 F.3d 581, 585 (5th Cir. 2010). ¶25 In the companion cases of Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873 , and Kronich, 160 Wn.2d 893 , we considered whether affidavits certifying the status of a defendant’s driving privilege are testimonial statements covered by the Sixth Amendment. 2007As I said in State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 889-90 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007) (Alexander, C.J., concurring), “There is a critical difference between certifying the existence of a public record and certifying the nonexistence of a public record” because “[t]he latter certification is prepared for trial, and ... serves as a vehicle to introduce facts not contained within the public records themselves.” Significantly, no public record existed prior to trial that stated that Kirkpatrick had never obtained a license.	2	2007–2012
State v. Monson green washctapp · 1989 2 sentences 2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi 2007App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff’d, 113 Wn.2d 833 (1989)). ¶21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington’s appellate courts makes clear that a certified statement as to the status of a defendant’s driving privilege is not an accusatory statement or testimony; it is not testimonial evidence.	2	2007–2007
State v. Chapman green washctapp · 2000 2 sentences 2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi 2007Rather, the records custodian “simply communicated [Smith’s] driving status as reflected in DOL’s computer records.” Id. 7 Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant’s driving privilege had been revoked “contain [ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.” 98 Wn.	2	2007–2007
State v. Monson green wash · 1989 2 sentences 2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi 2007App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff’d, 113 Wn.2d 833 (1989)). ¶21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington’s appellate courts makes clear that a certified statement as to the status of a defendant’s driving privilege is not an accusatory statement or testimony; it is not testimonial evidence.	2	2007–2007
State v. Roggenkamp green washctapp · 2003 2 sentences 2004Roggenkamp, 115 Wn. 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	2	2004–2004
Terry v. Ohio green scotus · 1968 2 sentences 2020Elton's detention by 2 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L. 2020Elton's detention by 2 392 U.S. 1 , 88 S. Ct. 1868 , 20 L.	1	2020–2020
Christen v. Lee green wash · 1989 1 sentence 2017Id. at 495- 96, 503.	1	2017–2017
State v. Smith green washctapp · 2004 2 sentences 2007Id. at 705 , 94 P.3d 1014 . 2007Rather, the records custodian "simply communicated [Smith's] driving status as reflected in DOL's computer records." Id. [7] Similarly, in Chapman , Division Three concluded that a DOL certification indicating the defendant's driving privilege had been revoked "`contain[ed] neither expressions of opinion nor conclusions requiring the exercise of discretion.'" 98 Wash. App. at 891 , 991 P.2d 126 (quoting State v. Monson, 53 Wash.App. 854, 858 , 771 P.2d 359 , aff'd, 113 Wash.2d 833 , 784 P.2d 485 (1989)). ¶ 21 In sum, the jurisprudence of Washington's appellate courts makes clear that a certifi	1	2007–2007
State v. Kronich green washctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2007Kronich, 131 Wash. App. at 546-47 , 128 P.3d 119 .	1	2007–2007
State v. NMK green washctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2007A DOL certification describing the status of a person's driving privilege is not testimonial evidence for purposes of the Crawford analysis ¶ 17 Adopting the approach of Division One of the Court of Appeals in State v. N.M.K., 129 Wash.App. 155 , 118 P.3d 368 (2005), the Court of Appeals below analogized the public record at issue to a nontestimonial business record.	1	2007–2007
State v. Kirkpatrick green wash · 2007 1 sentence 2007As I said in State v. Kirkpatrick, 160 Wn.2d 873, 889-90 , 161 P.3d 990 (2007) (Alexander, C.J., concurring), “There is a critical difference between certifying the existence of a public record and certifying the nonexistence of a public record” because “[t]he latter certification is prepared for trial, and ... serves as a vehicle to introduce facts not contained within the public records themselves.” Significantly, no public record existed prior to trial that stated that Kirkpatrick had never obtained a license.	1	2007–2007
State v. N.M.K. green washctapp · 2005 1 sentence 2007A DOL certification describing the status of a person's driving privilege is not testimonial evidence for purposes of the Crawford analysis ¶ 17 Adopting the approach of Division One of the Court of Appeals in State v. N.M.K., 129 Wash.App. 155 , 118 P.3d 368 (2005), the Court of Appeals below analogized the public record at issue to a nontestimonial business record.	1	2007–2007
State v. Kronich green washctapp · 2006 1 sentence 2007Kronich, 131 Wash. App. at 546-47 , 128 P.3d 119 .	1	2007–2007
State v. Roggenkamp neutral washctapp · 2003 1 sentence 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Neher green wash · 1989 2 sentences 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Acosta green wash · 1984 2 sentences 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Bradley green wash · 2000 1 sentence 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Aho green wash · 1999 2 sentences 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Cronin green wash · 2000 1 sentence 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Jackson green wash · 1999 1 sentence 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Green green wash · 1980 2 sentences 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Mierz green wash · 1995 2 sentences 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Aho green wash · 1999	1	2004–2004
State v. Ermert green wash · 1980	1	2004–2004
State v. McCullum green wash · 1983	1	2004–2004
State v. Salas green wash · 1995	1	2004–2004
State v. Jackson green wash · 1999	1	2004–2004
In Re WINSHIP green scotus · 1970 2 sentences 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Bradley green wash · 2000 1 sentence 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
State v. Cronin green wash · 2000 1 sentence 2004But Rivas does not necessarily contradict this instruction, as the "criminal conduct" to which it refers is the defendant's driving in violation of the statute. [21] Roggenkamp, 115 Wash.App. at 948 , 64 P.3d 92 . [22] State v. Bradley, 141 Wash.2d 731, 736 , 10 P.3d 358 (2000) (citing State v. Neher, 112 Wash.2d 347, 352-53 , 771 P.2d 330 (1989)). [23] Id. (citing State v. Aho, 137 Wash.2d 736, 745-46 , 975 P.2d 512 (1999)). [24] Id. (citing State v. Mierz, 127 Wash.2d 460, 471 , 901 P.2d 286 (1995)). [25] Aho, 137 Wash.2d at 745 , 975 P.2d 512 (citing State v. Ermert, 94 Wash.2d 839, 849-50	1	2004–2004
City of Seattle v. Foley green washctapp · 1990	1	1990–1990
Bell v. Burson green scotus · 1971	1	1983–1983
State v. Davis green washctapp · 1974	1	1979–1979

Where else courts name it

CA 128 (1968–2026) PA 29 (1955–2025) MO 27 (1893–2013) FL 21 (1974–2016) VA 16 (1996–2022) TX 16 (1956–2024) CO 16 (1980–2025) OH 15 (1975–2017) WA 12 (1979–2020) NC 12 (1975–2019) IN 7 (1977–2023) IL 7 (1999–2023) LA 7 (1978–1999) OK 7 (1972–2024) AZ 6 (1999–2025) NJ 5 (1975–2003) MI 5 (1891–1989) AL 4 (1977–2008) OR 4 (2007–2019) HI 3 (1978–2005) GA 3 (2012–2022) SD 3 (1986–2003) MN 3 (1985–2008) NM 2 (1975–2005) CT 2 (1992–1993) IA 2 (1963–1985) DE 2 (2016–2021) TN 2 (2006–2007) NY 2 (1971–2019) NE 2 (1976–1986) MD 2 (2003–2016)

Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check