Archive for washington law

Wrongful Arrest and Police Misconduct in WA – Fighting Back With Civil Claims

Wrongful Arrest and Police Misconduct in WA – Fighting Back With Civil Claims

No one expects to be arrested for a crime they didn’t commit. But in Washington, wrongful arrests and police misconduct still occur — leaving innocent people with lasting trauma, damaged reputations, and lost time. When law enforcement crosses the line, civil lawsuits can help restore accountability and justice.

What qualifies as a wrongful arrest? If a police officer detains someone without probable cause, fabricates evidence, or ignores clear proof of innocence, that arrest may be unlawful. In some cases, victims are jailed for days — or longer — before charges are dropped. Others face police brutality during an arrest, only to later have all charges dismissed.

What legal options do victims have? Washington residents can file civil rights lawsuits under both state law and Section 1983 of the U.S. Code, which prohibits government officials from violating constitutional rights. These claims can target the arresting officers, their supervisors, and the police department or municipality that allowed the misconduct.

Is police misconduct limited to arrests? No. Misconduct also includes excessive force, false imprisonment, illegal searches, racial profiling, and failing to intervene when another officer abuses power. Washington courts have seen cases where officers altered reports, lied under oath, or retaliated against whistleblowers within the force.

What kind of proof is needed? Body camera footage, dashcam video, 911 transcripts, eyewitness accounts, and booking records often provide the foundation of a case. Cell phone footage from bystanders has played a key role in many recent civil rights cases. In some situations, internal affairs records or disciplinary histories become evidence through discovery.

Can these lawsuits really win? Yes — and they often do. Washington has seen settlements and verdicts for victims of wrongful arrest, including six- and seven-figure outcomes. When officers lie, plant evidence, or ignore clear facts, juries tend to side with victims. These cases also lead to better training, new policies, and stronger community oversight.

What compensation is available? Damages may cover medical costs, lost income, legal fees, emotional distress, and harm to reputation. In rare but severe cases — especially involving malicious conduct — punitive damages may apply.

Wrongful arrests don’t just harm the person in custody. They undermine the justice system itself. If you’ve been mistreated by police in Washington — and especially if your charges were dropped or never filed — it may be time to push back.

The truth matters. And the law is on your side.

E‑Bike and E‑Scooter Lithium Battery Explosions – Product Liability and Consumer Danger

E‑Bike and E‑Scooter Lithium Battery Explosions – Product Liability and Consumer Danger

E-bikes and e-scooters are everywhere — from city streets to delivery fleets to suburban garages. But behind the convenience lies a growing legal risk: lithium-ion battery fires. These devices have sparked lawsuits across the country, including in Washington, where injured riders and homeowners are beginning to hold manufacturers accountable for fires, burns, and property damage caused by defective or poorly made batteries.

What happens when your mode of transportation becomes a fire hazard? Lithium-ion batteries can overheat, explode, or ignite when they’re overcharged, punctured, exposed to high temperatures, or manufactured with internal defects. For some, the danger doesn’t appear until the scooter is parked inside a home, or the battery is charging silently in a garage.

The central legal issue is product liability. Were the batteries properly tested? Did the manufacturer issue appropriate warnings? Was the charger included with the device UL-certified? These questions determine whether a manufacturer or retailer is responsible for injuries caused by thermal runaway — the chemical reaction that can trigger an explosion or fire in faulty batteries.

Is the manufacturer always liable? Not always — but in many cases, they are. If a battery was defectively designed, poorly assembled, or lacked safety mechanisms, that’s grounds for strict liability. Retailers may also be responsible if they failed to warn customers, sold devices without proper certifications, or ignored safety recalls. In some cases, victims may also have claims against importers or shipping companies, especially when the product was sourced from overseas and sold in the U.S. market.

Do riders have any responsibility? Riders may be accused of misusing the device, overcharging the battery, or exposing it to moisture. But most e-bike and scooter owners use these devices exactly as intended. When something explodes during routine use — or while charging overnight — the courts often side with consumers, especially when no clear warning was provided.

What evidence helps in a battery fire case? Photos of the damaged device, the charging area, and any remaining packaging can be critical. So can surveillance video, receipts, and the device’s instruction manual. In many cases, the battery itself is sent to a forensic lab for testing. Attorneys often bring in battery experts or electrical engineers to reconstruct what went wrong and why.

Why does this matter to homeowners and tenants? E-bike battery fires can cause serious structural damage. If your insurance claim is denied or underpaid, a product liability claim may be your best path to full compensation — not just for physical injuries, but for property loss, temporary relocation, and emotional trauma.

As micromobility devices grow in popularity, the need for legal accountability grows with them. Cities may adopt stricter regulations. But for now, the burden often falls on individual consumers to fight back after an injury — and make sure dangerous products are pulled from the market before someone else gets hurt.

New Washington Law Initiates Job Posting Requirements

Beginning January 1, 2023, employers in Washington with 15 or more employees will be required to disclose the wage scale, salary range, and a general description of benefits and compensation offered when posting job openings. This new law was signed on March 30, 2022, and is a revision of a 2019 amendment to the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act which required employers to disclose the wage scale and salary range only if requested by an applicant. The applicant’s request is no longer needed under the new law. The information is automatically provided as part of the application process.

The 2019 amendment is not changed by the new law when transfers and promotions of current employees are transacted. The employer only provides the required compensation information when the current employee makes the request. A portion of the 2019 amendment was removed by the legislature that stated that if there was no wage scale or salary range, the employer is only required to give a minimum wage or salary expectation before posting the position or making the internal transfer or promotion.

Creating job postings is not what the new law requires employers to do. The posting obligations are imposed on those that the employer chooses to create. Posting, according to the law, is defined as “any solicitation intended to recruit job applicants for a specific available position…” This is either through the employer or a third party, whether electronic or hard copy. Based on the definition of posting, a Help Wanted sign will not trigger a posting requirement. The law does not make it clear whether employers will be liable for any noncompliance by third-party posting boards. This includes third-party internet search engines.

New positions or promotions that will trigger the posting obligations are not defined by the law. If an aggressive approach is followed by Washington, a new position can be created by changing an employee’s job title. Employers who are considering reorganization or restructuring can avoid uncertainties by implementing these changes before January 1, 2023. General descriptions are required by the new law that includes benefits and compensation. Violation of the new law may result in the same consequences as any other violation of the Washington Equal Pay and Opportunities Act.

Navigating Forest Trail Politics

Battles over land use are not new in the American West.  Indeed, not counting the obvious examples documented between pioneers and Native Americans, at various times, our western heritage has witnessed conflicts exploding between all manners of groups.

Cattle barons and sheep ranchers fought over foraging areas, gold miners and farmers disputed water allocations between their two respective industries, and loggers and fishermen battled over erosion conditions in forest streams as each group attempted to dominate the environment in a seeming zero-sum game that could only see one victor to cite just a few.

Seemingly, the echoes of those battles continue to this day in the recreational realm as a new contest of wills has shaped up in the Evergreen State over who should have access to the off-road trails of the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest.

Washington Lawsuit Halts Forest Service Off-Road Plan

wa-at-vlawThe United States Forest Department’s decision to open up six routes available to wheeled ATVs (WATV), has sparked a lawsuit aimed at baring street-ready, all-terrain vehicles from the Okanogan-Wenatchee National Forest. Under Washington law, WATVs are ATVs modified and designed to be street legal.  As such, these vehicles are equipped with state issued license plates, and drivers must conform to all licensing requirements while complying with all applicable road rules.

The move, which would have opened up 350-miles of forest roads to WATV use, is opposed by an array of environmental groups including the Alpine Lakes Protection Society, Sierra Club, and the Kittitas Audubon Society.  Their suit alleges that the federal forest department violated not only the National Environmental Policy Act, but they also bypassed their own Travel Management Rule before more a proper, comprehensive, public process has occurred.

Potential Impact of Increased Trail Usage

watv-routesThe forest service action is designed to link new WATV routes to existing ATV trail usage, which has the potential of dramatically increasing traffic that has the real possibility of degrading the quality of existing habitat through overuse, and impairing the other recreational uses of other outdoor enthusiasts.

While forest officials claim that the proposed routes honors the forestry service’s goal of providing public access to as wide a group of people as possible.  For their part, the early opening of the park routes without proper environmental impact studies upset environmentalists.