In State v. Ibarra–Raya, 145 Wash.App. 516, 187 P.3d 301 (2008), we reversed Mr. Ibarra–Raya's controlled substances convictions. In City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wash.App. 360, 208 P.3d 574 (2009), we reversed the trial court's order granting summary judgment forfeiting the cash to the city of Walla Walla (City). Following remand, the City prevailed at trial, resulting in this third appeal by Mr. Ibarra–Raya.
Whether collateral estoppel precludes or bars a claim is a question of law that we review de novo. City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn.App. 360, 365, 208 P.3d 574 (2009).
See Barlindal v. City of Bonney Lake, 84 Wn.App. 135, 145, 925 P.2d 1289 (1996); see also City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn.App. 360, 365-66, 208 P.3d 574 (2009).
And illegally obtained evidence cannot be used in forfeiture proceedings. City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn. App. 360, 365, 208 P.3d 574 (2009). Wallace also contends the stop was improper because Officer Chissus did not have lawful authority to arrest him or Mosier for the misdemeanor of drug paraphernalia possession because it was not committed in his presence.
The "seizing law enforcement agency" (the City in this case) bears the burden "to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the property is subject to forfeiture." Id. at (5); see alsoCity of Walla Walla v . $401 ,333.44 4, 150 Wash.App. 360, 367-68, 208 P.3d 574 (2009). ¶20 There is not sufficient evidence to support forfeiture in this case.
We review de novo whether collateral estoppel bars an action. City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn. App. 360, 365, 208 P.3d 574 (2009). Here, collateral estoppel bars BG Plaza LLC's right of first refusal claim because all four parts of the test have been met.
We review de novo whether collateral estoppel bars an action. City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn.App. 360, 365, 208 P.3d 574 (2009).
"'[A] court may refuse to return seized property no longer needed for evidence only if (1) the defendant is not the rightful owner; (2) the property is contraband; or (3) the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to statute.'" City of Walla Walla v. $401.333.44. 164 Wn.App. 236, 244, 262 P.3d 1239 (2011) (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting City of Walla Walla v. $401.333.44. 150 Wn.App. 360, 367, 208 P.3d 574 (2009)). In Washington, CrR 2.3(e) governs motions for the return of lawfully seized property that is no longer needed for evidentiary purposes.State v. Alaway. 64 Wn.App. 796, 798, 828 P.2d 591 (1992).
City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 164 Wn.App. 236, 244, 262 P.3d 1239 (2011) (emphasis added) (quoting City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wn.App. 360, 367, 208 P.3d 574 (2009)). Thus, an evidentiary hearing is required before the trial court can deny Parra-Interian's CrR 2.3(e) motion for return of property.
¶ 21 “ ‘[A] court may refuse to return seized property no longer needed for evidence only if (1) the defendant is not the rightful owner; (2) the property is contraband; or (3) the property is subject to forfeiture pursuant to statute.’ ” City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 164 Wash.App. 236, 244, 262 P.3d 1239 (2011) (quoting City of Walla Walla v. $401,333.44, 150 Wash.App. 360, 367, 208 P.3d 574 (2009)). CrR 2.3(e)