The Washington Supreme Court granted review in the followoing four cases at its December 10 conference:

State v. Russell, No. 89253-9

Issue:

1.  A nonconsensual, warrantless, protective frisk is permitted only when a frisking officer has an objectively reasonable belief, based on specific and articulable facts, that a suspect is armed and presently dangerous. Was the search of Russell during cycling infraction stop permissible because the arresting officer had found a small firearm on Russell’s person during a search the previous week after Russell had initially denied being armed?

Durland v. San Juan County, No. 89293-8

1.  The Land Use Petition Act (“LUPA”), ch. 36.70C RCW, provides that aggrieved persons may appeal local land use decisions to the superior court, provided that they exhaust their administrative remedies “to the extent required by law.”  Durland did not learn of a building permit until after the administrative appeal period had expired, and he then filed a LUPA petition in superior court, which entered an order of dismissal for lack of jurisdiction for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.  Even though the local permitting authority was not required to give notice of its permitting decision, is there a due process exception to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement when the challenging party had no notice of the decision until after the expiration of the administrative appeal period?

2.  Is a party the “prevailing party” on appeal and therefore entitled to an award of attorney fees when an order of dismissal for lack of jursidictoin is affirmed?

State v. France, No. 89235-1

1.  Under State v. Allen (2013), was the document charging France with felony harassment defective for failing to include all essential elements of the crime because the document did not include a definition of true threat?

2.  Is remand for entry of findings and conclusions regarding France’s exceptional sentence required when, after France’s appeal was pending, the trial court entered findings and conclusions that followed its oral ruling and there was no showing that the late-entered findings and conclusions were tailored to meet the issues on appeal or prejudiced France?

State v. W.R., Jr., No. 88341-6

Issue:

1.  Is the Washington rule requiring a defendant to prove consent as a defense to rape constitutional?