Ruling on an issue of first impression, Washington state’s high court has decided that the business-records exception to the hearsay rule applies to a drug-testing center’s observational “incident report” that indicated a father, who later lost his parental rights, was possibly trying to provide a urinalysis sample that wasn’t his.

“The incident report in this case relied on personal observations” of a testing-center employee “as opposed to the kind of purely clerical or bookkeeping records or scientific test results our courts traditionally have deemed admissible under RCW 5.45.020,” which is the state’s law on business records as evidence, wrote a majority of the Washington Supreme Court justices.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]