![[U] City of Spokane v. Salmon](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![[U] City of Spokane v. Salmon](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
![](/assets/artwork/1x1-42817eea7ade52607a760cbee00d1495.gif)
[U] City of Spokane v. Salmon
125 WASH.APP. 1031, 2005.WA.0000171
-
- USD 0.99
-
- USD 0.99
Descripción editorial
The trial court dismissed Kevin Salmons appeal of an administrative order of forfeiture. Claiming the court erred by determining substantial compliance did not apply to the content requirements of a petition for review under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), chapter 34.05 RCW, Mr. Salmon appeals. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. Mr. Salmon appeared at a forfeiture hearing to contest the police seizure of his vehicle under Washingtons drug forfeiture law. RCW 69.50.505. The hearing officer entered an order of forfeiture including notice to Mr. Salmon of his right to appeal pursuant to chapter 34.05 RCW.