Ransom Law Firm, Bellingham, WA. 98225

The Justice Department announced its recent findings after concluding an 8-month investigation of the Seattle Police Department. They found that SPD “has engaged in a pattern or practice of excessive force that violates Constitutional and federal law.”

http://www.q13fox.com/news/kcpq-feds-to-release-investigative-findings-friday-on-seattle-police-department-20111215,0,3910112.story

Systematic failures in oversight, training, discipline, and other major departmental function are to blame, the report stated. In a statement, the Justice Department said “a number of long-standing and entrenched deficiencies have caused or contributed to these patterns or practices of unlawful or troubling conduct.”For instance, among 1320 “use of force” reports filed between January 2009 and April 2011, only five were referred for “further review” within the department.

At a press conference Friday, U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan was clear about the report’s conclusions. “When officers used force, it was done in an unconstitutional and excessive manner, nearly 20 percent of the time,” Durkan said.

The report states that in 57 percent of instances when officers used weapons such as batons, flashlights and pepper spray, they did so either too quickly or too excessively. It found that officers tend to escalate situations when arresting people for minor offenses, especially when the encounters are with people who are mentally ill or under the influence.

My opinion?  This is really bad news.  Sure, officers have extremely hard and difficult jobs.  Yes, they sometimes deal with irrational people and potentially dangerous encounters.  I get that.  It’s really bad, however, when we hear of officers - not alleged defendants - escalating situations out of control unnecessarily.  For example, some of my very own clients have ended up arrested and facing numerous charges when they only wanted to exercise their rights to speak to an attorney.  Is this justice? 

Let’s focus on the solution of training.  Continued training.  Attorneys and other professionals must attend classes every year which “re-up” their practice of law.  These classes are called Continuing Legal Education classes, or “CLE.”  Similarly, police officers should ge through similar ongoing training during the course of their profession.  Just my .02 cents. 

-Alex

Interesting and disturbing news:  close to one in three teens and young adults get arrested by age 23, suggests a new study that finds more of them are being booked now than in the 1960s.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45723332/ns/health-childrens_health/t/study-one-third-young-people-arrested-age/

The researchers said it seems that the criminal justice system has taken to arresting both the young and old more than it did in the past, when fines and citations might have been given to some people who are now arrested.

“If (police) find kids that are intoxicated or they have pulled over someone intoxicated… now, nine times out of 10 they’re going to make an arrest,” said John Paul Wright, who studies juvenile delinquency at the University of Cincinnati’s Institute of Crime Science, but wasn’t involved in the new study.

Those arrests are for everything from underage drinking and petty theft to violent crime, researchers said. They added that the increase might not necessarily reflect more criminal behavior in youth, but rather a police force that’s more apt to arrest young people than in the past.

Be careful.  Extra troopers, deputies and police officers will be on patrol this weekend in Whatcom County and around the state in an effort to get impaired drivers off the roads.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/12/15/2313094/extra-dui-patrols-begin-friday.html

About 1,000 law officers will be on duty in Washington the nights of Friday, Dec. 16, and Saturday, Dec. 17, for the 21st annual “Night of 1,000 Stars.”  The name refers to the badges worn by officers who will be watching for traffic violations, especially drunken driving, aggressive driving, speeding, and failure to wear a seatbelt.  “Every single year that we go through this we arrest people who made a bad choice,” said Washington State Patrol Trooper Keith Leary. “We want people to take our message seriously.”

A State Patrol airplane will also patrol Northwest Washington both nights.

And so it begins.  Again.

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/11/21/2281026/holiday-season-brings-extra-dui.html

Revelers should keep an eye on their cocktail consumption, as law enforcement will be putting extra time into finding drunk drivers this holiday season, starting Thursday, Nov. 24.

State Patrol troopers, police officers and sheriff’s deputies are conducting extra DUI patrols from Thanksgiving to Jan. 2, in an effort to reduce injuries and deaths caused by drunken driving.

Officers in Whatcom County arrested 151 people for driving under the influence during the same period of increased patrols last year. The enforcement is part of Washington’s Strategic Highway Safety Plan to eliminate traffic fatalities by 2030.

My advice?  Take a taxi!  Paying $10-$50 for a ride home is MUCH cheaper than $5K in attorney fees, fines, suspended license costs, evaluations, and treatment.

Uh oh . . .

On June 10, three inmates in Skagit County jail filed a class action lawsuit against the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington. Allegedly, the cities are systematically failing to provide assistance of counsel to low‐income persons who face criminal charges in municipal court.  According to papers filed in Skagit County Superior Court, the plaintiffs are seeking an injunction that will stop the cities from violating the constitutional rights of low‐income individuals. They are not requesting monetary damages.

http://www.defensenet.org/news/Press%20Release%20for%20Class%20Action%20Against%20Mount%20Vernon%20and%20Burlington.pdf

Documents obtained from the cities show that Mount Vernon and Burlington jointly contract with two attorneys to provide all of the public defense services in those jurisdictions. In 2010, these two attorneys were responsible for handling more than 2,100 public defense misdemeanor cases.

Under the Standards for Indigent Defense Services adopted by the Washington State Bar Association, a full‐time public defender should not have more than 400 such cases per year. The limit is even lower for attorneys working on a part-time basis.

According to the plaintiffs, the attorneys who contract with Mount Vernon and Burlington spend no more than a third of their time on public defense work, which allows for a maximum of 267 misdemeanor cases per year between the two of them. The plaintiffs allege that excessive caseloads and inadequate monitoring by the cities have resulted in a public defense system that deprives indigent persons of their constitutional rights. Among other things, plaintiffs claim the attorneys do not investigate the charges filed against indigent persons, do not respond to communications from indigent persons, do not meet with indigent persons in advance of court, and do not stand with or represent indigent persons during court hearings. 

The plaintiffs cite numerous complaints with the cities of Mount Vernon and Burlington. In December 2008, for example, the Skagit County Office of Assigned Counsel emailed city officials to inform them that indigent persons in Mount Vernon and Burlington will “go to court, come to our office, and [go] again to court with no attorney there to represent them even though counsel has been appointed.”

One low‐income person charged in Mount Vernon wrote: “I have not been fairly represented by either [attorney]. They have neglected to help my case at all. I would like a new public defender appointed to my cases please. Someone who will go over my case w/ me, discuss my options, meet w/ me before court, [etc.].” City officials have even received emails from Mount Vernon police officers who complain about the “difficulty” they have “contacting Public Defenders,” adding “we are not getting the service that is their obligation to perform.” Despite these complaints, Mount Vernon and Burlington recently agreed to extend their contract with the attorneys for an additional two years. Records obtained from Mount Vernon show the city council voted unanimously in favor of this extension.

Toby Marshall, one of the lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, says: “When you are arrested and charged with a crime, the right to counsel is the most fundamental and important right that you have. This is true regardless of your economic status.” The plaintiffs claim that in Mount Vernon and Burlington, low income individuals who are charged with a crime are being appointed counsel in name only. Matt Zuchetto, another lead attorney in the case, says: “We intend to present extensive evidence that will show the public defense system in Mount Vernon and Burlington is broken. At the end of the day, our clients are simply asking for one thing: to fix the system.”

My opinion?  I’ve got to agree with attorneys Marshall and Zuchetto.  The right to counsel is a civil right that is guaranteed by the constitutions of the United States and Washington.  This is especially true for low income defendants, who tend to face more criminal charges anyway. 

Unfortunately, this kind of thing happens.  Grant County faced the same problem in 2003.  It was discovered that Public Defender Thomas J. Earl handled 413 cases in one year.  That’s a staggering figure that eviscerated the chances of a vigorous defense.   At that rate, Earl could devote an average of only four hours per case, according to a formula used by the Washington Defender Association.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/news/local/unequaldefense/stories/two/

Maybe this time it’ll stick . . .

The group New Approach Washington announced the filing of an initiative to the legislature to legalize and regulate the production and sale of marijuana. The initiative’s sponsors include Seattle City Attorney Pete Holmes, former federal district attorney John McKay, and ACLU-WA’s Alison Holcomb, as well as experts in medicine, drug treatment and prevention, law and  business.  The initiative calls for Washington to treat marijuana essentially the way we currently treat hard alcohol – with clear distribution and use restrictions - and will earmark a portion of the state’s revenues for drug education and prevention programs. The group is united in the belief that Washington should neither treat the adult use of marijuana as a crime nor promote its unrestricted use.  

The ACLU of Washington is in full support of New Approach Washington.  They argue our current marijuana laws are ineffective, unreasonable and unfairly enforced.  The initiative addresses many issues at the heart of the ACLU’s work:  racial justice, overreaching government, privacy, and over-incarceration.   The ACLU-WA is providing strategic support to New Approach Washington, and, as an in-kind donation, our Drug Policy Director Alison Holcomb is serving as campaign director.

Under the initiative, marijuana that is grown by licensed Washington facilities and sold through licensed stores will be made legal for people age 21 and over.  Clear restrictions, age-limits, regulations and taxing are established - measures that will increase safety, undercut the black market and provide state and local tax revenue.  In addition, the laws that allow authorized patients and providers to grow medical marijuana will continue in place.  The initiative is the most comprehensive and carefully drawn of any marijuana legalization initiative.  It is likely to become a national model for other state marijuana law reform, which is a prerequisite for change at the federal level.

My opinion? The time has come for marijuana legalization.  It is widely accepted that the War on Drugs has been an utter failure, and has caused far more harm than good. It is time for Washington to address this reality and to take a new approach.

On land, sea and air . . .

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/06/23/2073245/sheriffs-office-launches-extra.html

Boaters hitting the water for the first weekend of summer should have a designated captain, as the Whatcom County Sheriff’s Office will be launching extra patrols on county waters starting Friday, June 24.

The patrols will look for people who are boating under the influence of drugs or alcohol through Sunday. The effort is part of a nationwide weekend of enforcement aimed at reducing the number of alcohol-related accidents on the water.

As part of the extra patrols, deputies will be making contact with boaters, doing safety checks and performing enforcement. Regular enforcement patrols will take place throughout the 2011 boating season.

My opinion?  Watch your drinking!  BUI (Boating Under the Influence) is the same as DUI (Driving Under the Influence) and carries similar penalties: jail, court fines, loss of license, alcohol evaluations, probation, etc.  It’s tempting to drink out there in the open water, but BE SAFE.

Be careful . . .

http://www.bellinghamherald.com/2011/06/22/2071389/dui-emphasis-patrols-begin-in.html

Hello Friends, Colleagues & Clients:

Good News!  Mr. Ransom has accepted employment at the prestigious Tario & Associates, P.S.  Located in downtown Bellingham, Tario & Associates represents clients for Personal Injury, Automobile Accidents, Criminal Defense, DUI and Family Law.  Our two office locations provide professional legal counsel for the people of Whatcom, Skagit, Island and Snohomish Counties.

http://www.bellingham-attorney.com/alexander-f-ransom

Mr. Ransom shall continue providing aggressive, effective and experienced representation in all areas of criminal defense; including misdemeanors, gross misdemeanors and felonies.  Please contact him at (360) 671-8500 for a free consultation.

Interesting. 

WA Supremes held that a defense attorney’s ”all or nothing” approach, in which “lesser included” jury instructions were rejected, was a legitimate trial tactic and did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel (IAC) under the state or federal constitutions. Trial courts are not required to provide lesser included instructions in the absence of a request for such instructions.

http://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions/index.cfm?fa=opinions.showOpinion&filename=834521MAJ

Defendant Kristina Grier was charged with Murder in the 2nd degree following a fight she had with the victim Gregory Owen.  earlier, they were drinking with a group of people at Grier’s home.  Owen was alleged to have stolen several items from Grier, during the course of the evening.  Some of these items included three guns.  Grier and her son confronted Owen.  A fight broke out.  Unfortunately, a gun went off, killing Owen.

At trial, Grier’s defense attorney withdrew his earlier request for a jury instruction on the lesser offense of Assault.  As a result, the jury was not instructed on those offenses.  The jury convicted Grier of murder.  The case went up for appeal on the issue of whether Grier’s defense attorney was ineffective.  The Court of Appeals reversed Grier’s conviction.  They believed Grier’s attorney was ineffective because he failed to request instructions on the lesser included offenses.

For those unfamiliar with criminal law practice, a “lesser included” offense shares some, but not all, of the elements of a greater criminal offense. Therefore, the greater offense cannot be committed without also committing the lesser offense. For example, Manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, assault is a lesser included offense of rape, and unlawful entry is a lesser included offense of Burglary.

The WA Supremes ruled Grier’s attorney’s decision to withdraw the lesser included offense instructions did not prevent her from raising an ineffective assistance claim.  The court also held that defense counsel’s “all or nothing” approach was a legitimate trial tactic and was not IAC.  The court vacated the Court of Appeals decision.

My opinion?  Interesting decision.  It’s difficult to play “Monday Morning Quarterback” and call a defense attorney’s trial tactics ineffective simply because the defendant lost at trial.  What if the defense attorney wanted the jury instruction and Grier was convicted?  Would she appeal the case anyway, and call her attorney ineffective because she was convicted on the lesser charge?  Good decision, WA Supremes.