In Re Tortorelli
66 P.3d 606 (2003)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The State of Washington holds title to natural resources within the beds of its navigable waters, including ancient submerged trees and unbranded stray logs, and this statutory and constitutional ownership supersedes the common law 'law of finds'.
Facts:
- John Tortorelli, owner of Western Wood Lumber, purchased salvage equipment to recover logs from Lake Washington.
- Tortorelli's agreement with the seller, Clearwater Marine Works, Inc., included a provision allowing him to use Clearwater's permits if legally permissible.
- In April 1991, the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) sent Tortorelli a letter advising him that the State owned all unbranded logs in the lake and outlining the applicable regulations.
- In August 1991, Tortorelli applied for a log patrol permit under the name of Clearwater Marine Works, not his own company, thereby avoiding the required $10,000 bond for new applicants.
- Tortorelli began salvaging ancient, submerged full-length fir trees, some over 1,000 years old, from a preserved underwater forest at the bottom of Lake Washington.
- He also salvaged unbranded stray logs that resulted from Corps of Engineers work around 1919.
- DNR officials had multiple discussions with Tortorelli about the legality of his operations, at one point reading him large portions of the log patrol statute.
- The State determined that Tortorelli had illegally seized and sold trees worth approximately $165,000.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Washington charged John Tortorelli in King County Superior Court (trial court) with theft, trafficking in stolen property, and criminal profiteering.
- A jury convicted Tortorelli on all counts.
- Tortorelli appealed his convictions to the Court of Appeals, which rejected his challenges and affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Tortorelli then filed this personal restraint petition with the Supreme Court of Washington, raising new challenges including the fundamental issue of the State's ownership of the logs and trees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the State of Washington own ancient submerged trees and unbranded stray logs located in the bed of a navigable lake, making them 'the property of another' for the purposes of a theft conviction?
Opinions:
Majority - Chambers, J.
Yes, the State of Washington owns the submerged trees and logs. The Washington Constitution vests ownership of the beds of navigable waters in the State. This ownership is further established by the federal equal footing doctrine and the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, which confirm state title to natural resources within such waters. The court reasoned that the ancient submerged trees qualify as 'natural resources,' analogous to oil and gas, which are also the result of ancient natural occurrences. Additionally, a separate state statute, the marks and brands statute, explicitly provides that unbranded stray logs become state property when recovered. The common law 'law of finds,' which Tortorelli argued gave him title as the discoverer, is superseded by these specific constitutional and statutory ownership provisions.
Dissenting - Sanders, J.
No, the State failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove it owns the submerged trees. The common law doctrine of finds, which grants ownership to the finder of unowned or abandoned property, should apply because the trees fell into the lake before the State existed. The majority improperly expands the definition of 'natural resources' under the Submerged Lands Act, which lists examples like minerals and marine life but not trees that originated on dry land. The rule of lenity requires that ambiguous criminal statutes be interpreted favorably to the accused, and the court should not create ownership by interpretation to secure a conviction where the law is unclear.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies a state's ownership rights over valuable, non-traditional resources found within the beds of its navigable waters. By explicitly rejecting the common law 'law of finds' in favor of constitutional and statutory ownership schemes, the court limits a potential avenue for private individuals to claim title to submerged historical artifacts or natural resources. This precedent strengthens the state's regulatory authority and its ability to prosecute individuals for taking such resources without permission, ensuring these assets can be managed for public interest, historical preservation, or revenue generation.
