Charles Johnson (Washington)
From Judgepedia
Contents |
Charles W. Johnson is an associate justice of the Washington Supreme Court. He was first elected to the state's highest court in January 1991. He won re-election for a second term in 1996, and a third term in 2002. He is now the most senior justice on the court. He was originally appointed by Democrat Governor Locke.
In 2008, he ran for re-election to a fourth six-year term against challengers Frank Vulliet and James Beecher. On August 19th, he won his re-election contest by receiving over 50% of the popular vote.
Legal Background
Justice Johnson graduated from the University of Washington in 1974. While working full-time in a Tacoma lumber mill, he attended the University of Puget Sound School of Law (now Seattle University School of Law) graduating in 1976. [1] Justice Johnson is the first graduate of the Seattle University School of Law to reach the Washington Supreme Court.
Legal Career
He remains active in the law school's activities, participating in moot court competitions and clinical exercises. He is an adjunct professor teaching a comprehensive seminar on the state constitution. Justice Johnson authored a comprehensive update on Washington search and seizure law in conjunction with the Seattle University Law Review in 1998 and 2005.
Johnson is a second generation lawyer. His father practiced law for over 60 years in Pierce County. He opened his own law practice in 1977, representing clients in nearly every area of criminal and civil litigation. He has been a member of the Washington State and Tacoma-Pierce County Bar Associations since 1977.
Awards and Associations
Johnson has served on the Board of Directors of the Washington Association for Children and Parents; the Washington State Minority and Justice Commission (co-chair); the Washington State Limited Practice Board (Supreme Court liaison), and chaired the Task Force on Equal Civil Justice Funding. He chairs the Court's Rules Committee and is a member of its Administrative, Budget and Personnel Committees. Johnson is a member of the American Inns of Court and the World Affairs Council. In October 2002, he received a special commendation from the Washington State Bar Association Committee on Legal Services to the Armed Forces for his outstanding service and contribution to the Armed Forces stationed in Washington State by originating and promoting a new court rule allowing military lawyers not licensed in Washington to provide in-court representation to eligible low income service members.
2008 campaign
August 19 primary results
For Position 4, Charles Johnson defeated challengers James Beecher and Frank Vulliet (379,647 to 198,727 and 68,378, respectively; or 58.70% to 30.73% and 10.57%, respectively).[2]
Endorsements
Washington Women Lawyers, The King County Bar Association, Loren Miller Bar Association, Latina/Latino Bar Association and Joint Asian Judicial Evaluations Committee has given Washington Supreme Court Justice Charles W. Johnson its highest possible rating, calling him "exceptionally well qualified" to serve another term.[3]
2002 campaign
Contributions
In the 2002 race for the Washington Supreme Court, Charles Johnson raised $114,363. Lawyers and Lobbyists make up the strong majority of the campaign contributions with $74,918, or 65.51%. Labor makes up the second largest group with $11,300, or 9.88%, and the third group consisted of Retirees and Civil Servants with $7,496, or 6.55% of the total.[4]
Seattle Times interview
- General election question: What about your personal background and community involvement qualifies you for this position?
- I practiced law for 14 years, representing clients with more common legal problems, the type of cases the court often deals with. I enjoy, in my spare time, teaching state constitutional law at Seattle University and support dozens of worthwhile community programs.
- Primary election questions: What can Washington state justices do to ensure mistakes aren’t made in death-penalty cases?
- We can, as we have, adopt rules requiring appointment of qualified counsel and, as the budget allows, increase the pay to attract more qualified counsel.
- What do you think about a judge declaring the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional because it mentions God?
- I disagree that the First Amendment prohibits repeating the words "under God." The First Amendment is concerned about the establishment of a government religion and is not antagonistic toward religious practices.
- What value do you hold above all others and why? Personally, my relationship with my wife and family.
- As a judge, individual rights and liberties.[5]
Marijuana odor in vehicle?
Johnson wrote the majority opinion for the Washington Supreme Court in a July 2008 decision that said police cannot arrest passengers simply for being in a car that smells of marijuana. The unanimous decision overturned a 29-year-old precedent allowing police to search or arrest passengers if they smelled pot near a car. The case, State v. Grande, began with a 2006 traffic stop in Skagit County. Driver Lacee Hurley and passenger Jeremy Grande were arrested by a state trooper during a traffic stop after he smelled pot coming from their car. The trooper searched the pair, finding a pipe and a small amount of pot on Grande. Both were charged with drug offenses. At a pretrial hearing, Grande's judge ruled there was no specific probable cause for his arrest and suppressed the evidence. But the Skagit County Superior Court overturned that ruling, citing a 1979 appellate court ruling saying the smell of pot smoke coming from a car was probable cause to arrest all the occupants. But the state Supreme Court said federal case law since 1979 has eroded the legal footing of that decision. Officers need additional evidence that each passenger broke the law, the court held.
Johnson wrote in the decision, "Our cases have strongly and rightfully protected our constitution's protection of individual privacy. The protections... do not fade away or disappear within the confines of an automobile. We hold that the smell of marijuana in the general area where an individual is located is insufficient, without more, to support probable cause for arrest. Where no other evidence exists linking the passenger to any criminal activity, an arrest of the passenger on the suspicion of possession of illegal substances, and any subsequent searches, is invalid and an unconstitutional invasion of that individual's right to privacy."[6]
Dissent on freedom of information
In May 2004, the court ruled in a 5-4 opinion that communications between government agencies and their lawyers are exempt from the state public-disclosure law. The majority said that attorney-client privilege supersedes the requirements of the landmark state Public Disclosure Act, approved by voters as an initiative in 1972. Chief Justice Gerry Alexander, writing for the majority, said it's clear the Legislature created the exemption when it amended the disclosure law, which makes most government documents available to the public, in 1987.
Johnson authored a strongly-worded dissent. He called the majority's opinion "absurd," arguing that it "renders ineffectual the (law's) strong mandate to agencies that they must disclose public information." News and open-government organizations reacted angrily to the ruling. "This decision has probably done more violence to the public-records act than any other decision they've done," said Seattle attorney Judith Endejan, who argued the case for the losing side and sits on the board of the Washington Coalition for Open Government. The ruling stemmed from two Seattle cases in which city officials, citing attorney-client privilege and other exemptions, refused to release some documents citizens had requested. One case involved the monorail, the other Sound Transit's light-rail line and a Pioneer Square "alcohol impact area." In the majority opinion, Alexander wrote that the Legislature had added language to the Public Disclosure Act 17 years ago allowing agencies to withhold records whose release is prohibited by other state laws. Since another state law says attorneys can't be required to reveal communications with their clients without the clients' approval, the chief justice wrote, it follows that "documents that fall within the attorney-client privilege are exempt from disclosure.... " Johnson, in his dissent, said that law is directed at lawyers, not government agencies, and so does not apply. Justices Faith Ireland, Bobbe Bridge, Susan Owens and Mary Fairhurst sided with Alexander. Johnson's dissent was signed by Justices Barbara Madsen, Richard Sanders and Tom Chambers.[7]
External links
- Justice Charles Johnson Reelection website
- WA Justice Charles Johnson seeks another high court term
- Wikipedia: Charles W. Johnson
- Follow the Money: Charles Johnson 2002 Election
- Johnson ousts popular Chief Justice 1990
- Seattle Times Interview with Charles Johnson
- Report on Justice Charles Johnson's Public Statement
