WA Supreme Court revives AG’s case against crime-free rental program (2024)

A discrimination lawsuit against the crime-free rental housing program in Sunnyside, Yakima County, can proceed, the state Supreme Court ruled.

Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson had sued Sunnyside in 2020, alleging the city’s police were violating people’s due process rights by ordering them evicted without a court hearing to present their side.

The program, the lawsuit alleged, appeared to disproportionately target Latino tenants, as well as households headed by women.

In a ruling issued Thursday, the court overturned Yakima County Superior Court Judge Kevin Naught’s 2022 ruling that had dismissed Ferguson’s case against Sunnyside, its former police Chief Al Escalera and four police officers.

Washington Supreme Court Justice Raquel Montoya-Lewis dismissed Sunnyside’s argument thatFerguson lacked authority to intervene on behalf of a small group of tenants who filed complaints. Rather, she said, the Attorney General’s Office was acting on behalf of all Washington residents in pursuing the case.

“The state is not seeking to simply enforce individual rights — tenants have no right to appeal a notice of violation under the [Crime-Free Rental Housing Program],” Montoya-Lewis wrote. “Rather, the state’s claims implicate three categories of interests that qualify as matters of public concern: the lawful operation of crime-free rental housing programs, protecting the civil rights of Washingtonians and preventing police misconduct.”

“All of those issues have significant effects on Washingtonians.”

Ferguson praised the decision as affirming his office’s authority to protect residents’ civil rights.

“One of my office’s core functions is to defend the civil and constitutional rights of residents,” Ferguson, who is also a Democratic candidate for governor, said in a news release Thursday. “In this case, Washingtonians were removed from their homes, separated from their families and rendered homeless. My office will protect Washingtonians from harmful and illegal discrimination.”

Attempts to contact interim City Manager Rob Layman, who is also the police chief, were not successful. He did not immediately respond to messages left on his cellphone or at City Hall.

Background

Sunnyside implemented its program in 2010 as a way to reduce crime.

Renters signed paperwork that listed certain crimes that would be considered breaches of the agreement if the tenant committed or permitted them to happen on or near their dwelling.

After being notified by police of possible violations, the landlords could issue notices to comply or initiate eviction.

Ferguson filed suit alleging that the officers were forcing people out of their homes for failing to comply with the rules of the program.

Several residents said police were ordering them to leave their homes within three days for perceived violations. In one case, a woman was evicted because a neighbor called police when one of the woman’s grandchildren — who did not live with her — was seen playing unsupervised while at her home.

Some of the people evicted wound up being homeless for a time, the lawsuit said.

The suit was first filed in U.S. District Court but was dismissed on grounds that the state lacked legal standing to bring the case to court. It was refiled in Yakima County Superior Court, where Sunnyside and the officers moved for summary judgment on grounds that Ferguson did not have the authority to file the case and that the officers had qualified immunity from lawsuits in the matter.

Naught granted summary judgment on behalf of Sunnyside and the officers, and the case was appealed.

State Supreme Court decision

The state Supreme Court rejected Sunnyside’s argument that the tenants’ claims were not a public concern that warranted the attorney general’s involvement. The attorney general could intervene in a matter of concern to the state, Montoya-Lewis wrote, even if it only directly affected a small group.

“Thus, this matter of ‘public concern’ analysis is better characterized as looking to whether the matter has a significant effect on Washingtonians rather than whether it affects a significant number of Washingtonians,” Montoya-Lewis wrote.

If Sunnyside is disregarding due process rights in enforcing its crime-free housing program, Montoya-Lewis wrote, it is a matter of public concern and the attorney general needs to intervene before similar problems spread in the state.

The court also found that federal and state courts have established that tenants have a right to notice and a hearing before an eviction can be carried out, and the officers stated they knew they had no right to evict people.

“Thus, the contours of the right are sufficiently clear and a reasonable officer would understand the alleged misconduct violates that right,” Montoya-Lewis wrote.

The majority of the court upheld Naught’s ruling that Sunnyside didn’t violate the Residential Landlord-Tenant Act as it did not apply to the city.

However, Chief Justice Steven González and Justice Mary Yu dissented, arguing that the officers were acting as the landlords’ agents in enforcing the terms of the program.

During arguments before the Supreme Court in 2023,Kirk A. Ehlis, an attorney for Sunnyside, said thePoliceDepartment there has not been pursuing the program since the attorney general sued the city.