State Of Washington v. M.g. ( 2020 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
DIVISION ONE
STATE OF WASHINGTON, )
) No. 80167-8-I
Respondent, )
)
v. ) UNPUBLISHED OPINION
)
M.G., )
)
Appellant. )
)
PER CURIAM — M.G. appeals juvenile court orders concluding he
violated his probation by refusing to submit to urinalysis, ordering him to
serve one day in detention, and suspending the detention time if he
submitted to urinalysis. M.G. concedes that the mental health disposition
alternative underlying his probation contained a number of probation
conditions, including mental health counseling, substance abuse counseling,
and urinalysis. He argues, however, that “Article I, section 7 does not
authorize suspicionless probation searches unrelated to the facts of the
case,” and “[t]he trial court unconstitutionally penalized [him] for asserting his
right to privacy.” He claims “[s]uch errors are likely to recur in juvenile cases
without direction otherwise from this Court” and asks that we “vacate the
order for suspicionless, random searches . . . .”
No. 80167-8-I/2
The State points out that the mental health disposition alternative
contained a standard community supervision condition that M.G. “shall not
possess or consume drugs/alcohol or possess drug paraphernalia, with
monitoring as directed, including urinalysis.” The State further asserts, and
M.G. does not dispute, that M.G. did not oppose the probation counselor’s
recommended conditions at the disposition hearing, that he did not appeal
the disposition that included the condition, and that his appeal from the post-
disposition orders does not bring the original judgment up for review.
In addition, the State points out, and M.G. again does not dispute, that
the appeal is moot because “the conditions of the suspension [were]
satisfied, the sanction was never imposed,” and “[t]he period of supervision
has expired.” Cases presenting moot issues on appeal are generally
dismissed. City of Seattle v. Johnson, 58 Wash. App. 64, 66–67, 791 P.2d 266
(1990). However, a court may address a moot issue if “matters of continuing
and substantial public interest are involved.” Sorenson v. City of Bellingham,
80 Wash. 2d 547, 558, 496 P.2d 512 (1972). Three criteria “must be
considered” in determining whether the requisite public interest exists:
(1) the public or private nature of the question presented, (2) the need for a
judicial determination for future guidance of public officers, and (3) the
likelihood of future recurrences of the issue. State v. G.A.H., 133 Wash.
2
No. 80167-8-I/3
App. 567, 573, 137 P.3d 66, 69 (2006). Because M.G. does not directly
address mootness or these criteria, we dismiss the appeal as moot.
FOR THE COURT:
3