Potter v. Washington State Patrol (2008)
Citation: 196 P.3d 691 · Docket: 79172-4 · Decided: November 26, 2008 · Court: Washington Supreme Court, en banc.
Facts
The State Patrol impounded Potter’s vehicles on two suspended-license arrests, despite his request that licensed relatives take them. Unable to pay the charges, he did not timely request statutory hearings; the towing company auctioned the vehicles. After the mandatory impound policy was invalidated, his class sought conversion damages. This opinion addressed statutory exclusivity on reconsideration of the court’s 2007 decision, not the initial privilege issue. Full opinion, paragraphs 1–9, unofficial Justia reproduction.
Holding
RCW 46.55.120 did not make its redemption procedure the exclusive remedy for unlawful impoundment. A conversion action against the impounding authority remained available. The court reversed the trial court and remanded. Opinion, paragraphs 1, 10–12 and conclusion.
Reasoning
The statute lacked an exclusivity provision or clear legislative intent to displace common law. Redemption of an impounded vehicle is different from damages after it has been sold. Waiver of the statutory hearing did not waive every cause of action; net auction surplus was not equivalent to fair-market-value conversion damages. The dissent would have treated the statutory remedy as exclusive. Opinion, paragraphs 19–32 and dissent.
Practical impact
An auction does not by itself insulate the impounding agency from conversion liability. But this decision does not cancel purchasers’ titles, award damages against buyers, or adjudicate every individual impound unlawful. Buyers must separately verify the current statutory notice and title-transfer process. Opinion; current chapter 46.55.
Good-law status
needs_verification: full opinion retrieval is verified, but comprehensive
subsequent appellate history and current precedential status are not. The
2008 reconsideration opinion must not be conflated with the separate 2007
opinion. The current statute was retrieved independently; that is not citator
clearance.
Limited later treatment was independently retrieved from Haffner v. Alm, No. 70494-0-I (January 20, 2015), an unpublished Court of Appeals opinion. It cites Potter for conversion principles and affirms disposal of abandoned construction equipment on its facts. It does not hold that the tow-redemption procedure became exclusive or decide a tow-auction buyer’s title. Full official Haffner opinion. This limited use does not establish comprehensive appellate treatment.
Horner v. City of Seattle, No. 2:24-cv-01488-RSL, document 40 (W.D. Wash. May 6, 2026), pp. 8–10, expressly distinguishes Potter’s unlawful agency- policy impound. It dismissed conversion on its pleaded lawful-impound facts; it did not make .120 exclusive or decide a completed-sale buyer’s title. This is limited federal district-court application, not an appellate overruling. Full 27-page judicial order.
The full 2008 opinion was independently read again through the ordinary web reader on 2026-10-17. A separate direct HTTP 403 response did not negate that successful retrieval. Current ch. 46.55/WAC 308-61 were also downloaded, including the latter’s express completed-auction transfer rule; they do not turn this conversion decision into a purchaser-title holding.
Applies in →
Legal information, not legal advice. Verify subsequent treatment and the applicable statutory version before relying on this decision.