Tag Archives: Mt. Vernon Criminal Defense

Drug Use Still Significant Among U.S. Workers

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , ,

Despite the surge of people who embraced healthier lifestyles amid the new perspectives they’d gained during the pandemic, drug use remains significant among U.S. workers. Recent data analysis by testing company Quest Diagnostics found that nearly 20 percent of employees generated positive results for a range of illicit substances in 2025. This usage reflects potentially reflecting recurring or chronic drug use.

Nearly one in five workers in the general U.S. workforce (19.1%) tested positive for drug use based on an analysis of hair specimens collected in 2025. This brings an increase of nearly 46% compared to 13.1% in 2021. That included higher detection of narcotics like cocaine, methamphetamine, and amphetamines among employees.

Marijuana led the list of drugs identified—by far, constituting more than 53 percent of all positive tests. That increase likely reflects the growing number of states legalizing medical or recreational cannabis consumption—or both—and slower moves by businesses to scratch pot off their banned substances lists.

DETECTION OF OPIOIDS DECLINING

The good news was that positive testing for opioids among workers finally fell. This comes after years of increased use left millions of lives wrecked or entirely snuffed out. That’s likely a result of governments and companies having appreciated the deadly threat that drugs like fentanyl pose to workers, as well as the efforts they’ve made to detect and dissuade use of the drugs.

“Year-over-year fentanyl positivity declined by nearly half (49.1 percent) in the general U.S. workforce (0.55 percent in 2024 vs. 0.28 percent in 2025) . . . This decline may indicate that employers are taking steps to address fentanyl use, often present alongside other substances such as marijuana, through expanded testing, education, and deterrence strategies.” ~Quest Diagnostic Report

DESPITE DECLINES, WORKPLACE OVER-DOSAGES STILL HAPPEN

Despite decreasing opioid detection rates, other data indicates how the risk of fentanyl use and overdose remains something employers need to be concerned about. This issue is precisely what the Department of Labor’s new guidelines are seeking to close amid the continued risk of workplace opioid overdoses.

“Because fentanyl has infiltrated the illicit drug landscape and acts as a chemical weapon against our people, it is critically important that the American workforce is familiar with drug overdose recognition and reversal . . . I am grateful to the Department of Labor for informing employers and workers about life-saving overdose-reversal treatments like Naloxone.” ~White House Drug Czar Sara Carter

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Study Addresses Link Between Cannabis & Violence

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Diminished Capacity, Drug Offenses, marijuana, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Recent research has found a link between cannabis use and increased violent behavior. The UK journal Psychological Medicine published findings that people who regularly used cannabis were significantly more likely to commit a violent act than non-users. They were also more likely to be a victim of a violent act. Though the research doesn’t prove a cause-and-effect link, it suggests that cannabis use might be an important and potentially modifiable risk factor for interpersonal violence.

Cannabis use is a known risk factor for adverse mental health outcomes, including psychosis, which is frequently associated with aggression. However, the specific impact of cannabis use on the risk of violence remains unclear.

THE STUDY’S METHODOLOGY

This study’s meta-analysis was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines, and synthesized evidence from 63 peer-reviewed studies.  This effort was done to clarify the link between cannabis use and violence, either as a perpetrator or as a victim. In short, Random-effects models revealed that cannabis users are at a significantly higher risk of perpetrating violent acts. This association was observed in both psychiatric patients  and the general population, and remained significant across both longitudinal and cross-sectional study designs.

There was an especially large effect for violence involving a criminal conviction in both general and psychiatric populations. Furthermore, cannabis use was significantly associated with an increased risk of becoming a victim of violence, a risk more pronounced in females and mixed-gender cohorts compared to males. This meta-analysis indicates an increased risk of violence, especially that resulting in a criminal conviction, among cannabis users. It also highlights the potential of cannabis use as a target for interventions to decrease violence, and underscores the need for routine assessment of cannabis use among psychiatric patients.

WHY DOES CANNABIS USE INFLUENCE VIOLENT BEHAVIOR?

According to the study, possible explanations for the association between cannabis use, particularly high doses, and violence include impairments in attention, executive function, inhibition, and problem-solving abilities. Prolonged heavy use can also influence mood and emotional regulation, including feelings of anger and hostility. Moreover, during periods of cannabis withdrawal, individuals may experience irritability, anxiety, restlessness, and impaired functioning, potentially leading to aggressiveness. Most importantly, regular cannabis use increases the likelihood of experiencing paranoia, causing individuals to interpret neutral stimuli as potentially threatening, leading individuals to believe that they must defend themselves.

In addition, cannabis users tend to exhibit higher levels of impulsivity and engage in more risk-taking behaviors, which could lead to antisocial and criminal activities as part of their lifestyle. These mechanisms represent only one component of the broader relationship between drugs and violence, which has also been conceptualized as involving psycho-pharmacological, economic-compulsive and systemic pathways. However, these psycho-pharmacological mechanisms are unlikely to fully explain the observed association.

The study also found that cannabis use frequently co-occurs with a range of individual, social and environmental factors, including impulsivity, antisocial traits, adverse socioeconomic circumstances and exposure to violent environments, that may independently contribute to violence risk. The available evidence therefore suggests that the association between cannabis use and violence is likely to reflect multiple interacting pathways rather than a single direct causal mechanism.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense, Assault, or any other crime. Potential defenses to some crimes may include Diminished Capacity and Voluntary Intoxication. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Bellingham City Council Bans Kratom

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Kratom, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Last week, Bellingham City Council members unanimously approved a ban on Kratom. This effort joins government efforts to regulate the drugs. The City Council’s ban includes the “preparation, distribution and sale Kratom and related products, including products containing concentrated or synthetic 7-hydroxymitragynine, commonly known as 7-OH.”

In Bellingham, Kratom products were sold at many locations, including gas stations, smoke shops and convenience stores. These products were available to children and teenagers.

WHAT IS KRATOM?

Kratom comes from the leaves of a tree native to Southeast Asia. It contains the opioids mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine or 7-OH, according to the American Psychiatric Association. It can be sold as a powder, in tablets or capsules, as tea or another drink and is sometimes available in highly concentrated form because it remains unregulated.

Kratom is variously promoted as a wellness drink, a stimulant or as a way to withdraw from opioid drugs. Other medical professionals are expressing concern, too, including the Mayo Clinic. “Some studies have found that some Kratom sellers add more of the active ingredient than Kratom naturally has. Because Kratom products lack clear labels, it’s not possible to know how much Kratom people who use it take,” the Mayo Clinic said in an article published at its website.

WHAT LED TO THE BAN OF KRATOM IN BELLINGHAM?

Bellingham officials said they crafted the ordinance because Kratom products are widely available and mostly unregulated, according to the ordinance and supporting documents.

“The proposed ordinance responds to the local availability of these products and the absence of a comprehensive retail regulatory system that adequately addresses product strength, labeling, placement and youth access. By prohibiting local sales and distribution, the proposed ordinance is intended to reduce easy access by minors and adults, prevent substance misuse and dependency, lower the risk of poisoning and accidental overdose, and protect the community from longer-term health consequences.” Please See the PDF Packet (see page 118) on the meetings website.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a Drug Offense or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

FBI Laboratory Eliminates DNA-Processing Backlog

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DNA, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Uncategorized, , , , ,

In a press release, the FBI announced that it eliminated years-long DNA-processing backlog, shrinking it from an all-time high of about 1.81 million samples to zero.

BACKGROUND ON THE FEDERAL DNA DATABASE UNIT

The FBI Laboratory’s Federal DNA Database Unit (FDDU) is a team that exists to intake and process DNA samples from U.S. Department of Justice and other federal law enforcement agencies. The FDDU generates genetic profiles from these samples, quality-checks these profiles, and adds them to the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS). This national database contains genetic profiles from crime scenes contributed by federal, state, and local forensic laboratories.

Historically, this tasking required the FDDU to turn around about 100,000 samples received from DOJ and other federal law enforcement agencies each year. But a federal regulation change that happened to coincide with the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic caused the unit’s workload to surge, eventually climbing to well over a million unprocessed samples.

Federal law requires U.S. Department of Justice components and federal law enforcement agencies to capture DNA samples and biographic information from federal arrestees, from non-U.S. citizens whom the U.S. government detains, and from convicted criminals. Those samples then head to the FBI Laboratory.

There, FDDU intakes the samples, processes them, and uses them to generate genetic profiles that are added to the CODIS database. Law enforcement agencies can then query DNA samples from crime scenes or evidence kits against profiles in CODIS in hopes of getting a match—which would, in theory, tie an individual in the database to a crime.

TECHNOLOGICAL ADVANCES

Rapid DNA instruments can now be produced that can create a CODIS-worthy profile within about 90 minutes. Also, the FBI approved the first eligible system to generate DNA profiles that can be searched against the national CODIS database network when FBI requirements are met.

Previously, Rapid DNA technologies were primarily used for reference, victim identification and booking applications. This new technological development now enables law enforcement to accelerate their investigations by potentially matching evidentiary samples to suspects in hours rather than days or weeks. This supports faster identification of perpetrators or earlier exclusion of individuals from investigative focus, while maintaining FBI quality requirements, laboratory oversight, qualified analyst review and accredited laboratory standards.

ARE THE FBI’S DNA PROFILES A SEARCH & SEIZURE THAT VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT?

yES. As DNA database programs have widened in scope and grown in numbers, their consistency with the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures has increasingly been challenged. In the context of compulsory DNA collection, courts have widely upheld laws mandating the collection of DNA from persons who were convicted and are subject to the penal system’s custody or supervision. However, no judicial consensus has emerged regarding the constitutionality of mandating DNA collection from arrestees who have been criminally indicted.

Instead, courts have split over the existence and scope of an arrestee’s reasonable expectation of privacy and the degree of privacy intrusion caused by DNA sampling. The limited number of court decisions in this area also suggests that there are conflicting opinions about the analogousness of DNA collection and fingerprinting.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search & Seizure. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Is It Against the Law to Destroy Flock Surveillance Cameras?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Fourth Amendment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Surveillance Creep, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Across the nation, people are vandalizing Flock surveillance cameras at an alarming pace. A surge in such activity underscores the growing resistance to this police surveillance technology.

WHAT ARE FLOCK CAMERAS?

Flock Safety makes surveillance camera systems that record and analyze everything that passes them. The company sells its services as a crime-fighting tool, and some law enforcement agencies that have contracts with Flock use the cameras’ automated license plate readers to track or reconstruct movements of vehicles in criminal investigations.

According to the company, more than 5,000 law enforcement agencies use its technology. More broadly, there are more than 130,000 AI-powered automated license plate readers on American streets, according to DeFlock, an advocacy group that tracks the cameras.

Because Flock cameras are all connected, it creates a nationwide latticework of recorded activity. Across the majority of states, a police officer in one state can be alerted if a car they’re looking for pops up in another and can inform the local authorities.

WHY ARE PEOPLE VANDALIZING FLOCK CAMERAS?

An online movement called DeFlock is growing in popularity. DeFlock’s messaging claims that Flock cameras are a serious risk to your privacy and civil liberties. These systems continuously record your movements without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion. Your driving history is rarely confined to the town or city where the cameras are installed. It’s typically shared with thousands of other agencies nationwide (secretly). DeFlock claims that once the data is out of your community, you have no control over how it’s used or what rules apply, leading to instances of misuse.

People have cut down Flock cameras with an electric saw in upstate New York, thrown paint on them in Oakland, California, and rammed a truck into them in Idaho. One man in Florida sits in a lawn chair holding up a piece of cardboard on a pole to block the camera’s view. City governments have joined in by deactivating the cameras or canceling contracts with Flock in Fort Collins, Colorado; Eugene, Oregon; Madison, Wisconsin; Knoxville, Tennessee; Syracuse, New York; and Walla Walla, Washington.

ARE FLOCK CAMERAS IN WASHINGTON STATE?

Yes. DeFlock’s map currently shows more than 2,100 mapped automated license plate readers in Washington, with Flock Safety accounting for the large majority of mapped cameras. Another independent Washington ALPR inventory lists 2,187 mapped cameras in the state and says 1,912, or 87.4%, are attributed to Flock Safety.

CAN FLOCK CAMERAS BE USED TO TRACK PEOPLE?

404 Media reported that a Flock capability called “FreeForm” allows users to search camera records based on what someone was wearing, their tattoos or even their race. The site also reported that, despite Flock not sharing data with agencies like U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, police officers have been performing searches to aid in immigration sweeps.

IS IT ILLEGAL TO DISARM, BLOCK OR VANDALIZE FLOCK CAMERAS?

In short, yes. Damaging a Flock camera can result in criminal charges. However, the specific charge depends on the circumstances.

Washington’s malicious-mischief laws make certain types of property damage a felony. Second-degree malicious mischief is a class C felony when someone knowingly and maliciously causes more than $750 in physical damage or creates a substantial risk of interruption or impairment of public service by damaging certain public property. First-degree malicious mischief is a class B felony under circumstances including damage exceeding $5,000 or certain interruptions of public service.

DO FLOCK CAMERAS VIOLATE THE FOURTH AMENDMENT RIGHT AGAINST UNLAWFUL SEARCH & SEIZURE?

No. Courts, such as in cases like United States v. Martin, have held that license plates and vehicle characteristics displayed on public roads carry no reasonable expectation of privacy under the Fourth Amendment, because motorists knowingly expose them to public view.

Nevertheless, the debate rages on. Civil liberties groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argue that networked, mass-surveillance databases aggregate data in a way that mimics continuous tracking—drawing parallels to Supreme Court rulings on cell phone location data (Carpenter v. United States) and GPS trackers (United States v. Jones) that do require search warrants. Because of this aggregation concern, ongoing lawsuits and lower court appeals are actively challenging these deployments

WHAT ARE MY CHANCES AT TRIAL?

Probably not great, but not impossible, either. In June, a grand jury in Ohio refused to bring felony charges against a Clermont County man accused of destroying a Flock automatic license plate reader (ALPR). The prosecution’s case seemed iron-clad: according to Cincinnati’s Local12, police identified the man using surveillance footage from multiple nearby cameras, combined with info gleamed from a credit card and a customer rewards account. Despite the evidence against him, the jury declined to indict him, resulting in all charges being dropped.

Clearly, the public lacks the will to prosecute these crimes. Also, observers and commentators on social media suggested the grand jury’s refusal to indict acted similarly to jury nullification – where a panel rejects clear legal guilt because they disagree with the law or the tool being protected.

Please review my Search & Seizure Legal Guide and contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving the use of Flock Cameras. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Pretrial Drug-Monitoring “Sweat” Patches Ruled Unconstitutional

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Pretrial Release, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In Bailey-Cobb v.Snohomish County District Court, No. 87738-1-I (Aug. 17, 2026), the WA Court of Appeals held that Pretrial Drug Monitoring Patches (PDMP’s) are a search and must therefore be supported by authority of law to be lawful.

WHAT ARE PRETRIAL DRUG MONITORING PATCHES?

Ingested drugs have been known to appear in sweat. This has created the development of sweat collection devices for use in drug detection, such as the PDMP sweat patches. However, externally applied drugs or drugs deposited on the skin, can cause false positives or contamination from within (CFWI). Different cleaning procedures are used to remove externally applied drugs, however some drugs can remain causing false positives. Also, if an individual lives in a drug-contaminated environment, CFWI could occur also producing misleading results for drug use.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In these consolidated cases, the State charged Mrs. Simone Bailey-Cobb and Mr. Toombs with DUI. As a condition of their pretrial release, the court required them to wear PDMP’s. Bailey-Cobb and Toombs challenged the imposition of the drug patch as a condition of pretrial release. The trial court denied the petitions. Bailey-Cobb and Toombs appealed, alleging the drug-monitoring patch violated the Washington State Constitution.

Additionally, Bailey-Cobb contended the trial court erred in finding she would interfere with the administration of justice, and Toombs claimed the trial court did not make the requisite findings under CrRLJ 3.2 to impose any conditions. We conclude that Bailey-Cobb and Toombs did not suffer diminished privacy interests as pretrial releasees, and the court’s imposition of a drug-monitoring patch violated their rights under article I, section 7. Accordingly, we reverse and remand for the trial court to remove the drug-monitoring patch condition from Bailey-Cobb’s and Toombs’s pretrial release requirements.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court of Appeals (COA) began by saying both the United States Constitution and the Washington State Constitution protect individuals against unreasonable searches and seizures. When a party challenges an action, contending it violates constitutional rights, the court conducts a two-part inquiry.

“First, we must determine whether the alleged action “intruded upon a person’s private affairs,” said the COA. “If a privacy interest exists, the next question is whether relevant authority of law justifies the disturbance.”

Next, the COA discussed CrRLJ 3.2. This court rule gives courts the ability to impose conditions on the accused if the court determines there exists a substantial danger that the accused will commit a violent crime or that the accused will seek to intimidate witnesses, or otherwise interfere with the administration of justice. The conditions include prohibiting the accused from “consuming any intoxicating liquors or drugs not prescribed to the accused” and “any condition other than detention to assure noninterference with the administration of justice[] and reduce danger to others or the community.” To determine which conditions are reasonable, the court shall consider, among others, the accused’s criminal record, the nature of the charge, and the accused’s past interference with the administration of justice.

PDMP’s Are Invasive Technology

The COA reasoned that although Bailey-Cobb and Toombs would not need to submit a urine sample, they would be submitting far more personal information with the patch than urinalysis testing.

“And once affixed to the body, the patch collects and retains evidence of any and all drugs ingested, regardless of whether it is prescribed or otherwise not prohibited, and the individual wearing the patch is required to go into Triton’s office every 10 to14 days to get a new patch. Additionally, the patch does not test for alcohol, which is one of the substances the court order prohibited, so it is conceivable that further testing would be required. The drug patch is also susceptible to outside environmental contamination in limited situations. Because the drug-monitoring patch is invasive and would reveal far more personal information than necessary, it is not narrowly tailored and cannot survive the Olsen balancing test.” ~WA COA

The State Does Not Have a “Special Need”  to Monitor By Imposing PDMP’s.

Next, the COA rejected the argument that the State had a “special need” to monitor the drug use of pretrial releasees via a drug-monitoring patch. “The special needs exception permits an otherwise unlawful search when special needs, beyond the normal need for law enforcement, make the warrant and probable cause requirement impractical,” said the COA.

“Here, the State maintains a special need exists because requiring a warrant or probable cause would jeopardize the State’s need to monitor the defendants for the sake of public safety. But our Supreme Court has repeatedly declined to apply a special needs exception under article I, section 7. See, e.g., Evans, 5 Wn.3d at 215 (declining to adopt the federal special needs exception for administrative searches of pretrial releasees); Blomstrom, 189 Wn.2d at 410 (declining to apply the special needs exception for urinalysis testing of pretrial releasees). Like the balancing test, precedent does not support applying the special needs exception to the imposition of a drug-monitoring patch for pretrial releasees.” ~WA COA

The COA concluded there was no authority of law to impose PDMP’s.  Also, neither the compelling interest test, nor the “special needs” exception to the search warrant requirement applied. “The drug monitoring patch, and the process for obtaining the patch, reveal more personal information than necessary,” said the COA.  “Thus, the patch condition was not narrowly tailored, and not lawful.”

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search & Seizure issues. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

High Court Rules “Geofence Warrants” Constitute a Search Under 4th Amendment

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Search Warrant, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Uncategorized, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

In Chatrie v. United States, No. 25-112 (Jun. 29, 2026), the U.S. Supreme Court held that Geofence Warrants constitute a “search” under the Fourth Amendment. They acquire people’s location data from Google by linking to their cell-phone location information.

WHAT ARE “GEOFENCE WARRANTS?”

Geofence warrants are an investigative tool typically employed when law enforcement knows the approximate time and location of a crime but not the identities of suspects. In executing a geofence warrant, law enforcement compels a company to provide certain information indicating which particular smartphones were present within a geographic area during a specified time frame. Law enforcement can then use the information to potentially identify the owner of a smartphone found in the area of interest during the time frame. Because geofence warrants do not begin with an identifiable suspect, they have been said to “‘work in reverse” from traditional search warrants.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On May 20, 2019, a man robbed a credit union in Virginia. Local police officers learned from witness interviews and surveillance footage that the robber had approached the credit union from a corner of an adjacent church while appearing to talk on a cell phone, but they could not find out anything more, and the robber remained at large. On June 14, the police officers applied to a Virginia magistrate for a Geofence Warrant directed to Google.

Here, the Geofence Warrant would require Google to hand over data about the cell phones located within a 150-meter radius of the credit union—the so-called “geofence”—near the time of the crime.

The federal magistrate judge granted and issued the warrant. Through this process, Google ultimately produced three cell-phone users’ identifying information, including the Defendant Mr. Chatrie. His location data showed that he entered the geofence about ten minutes before the robbery and headed toward a residential area immediately after leaving the bank.

Following further police work, a federal grand jury charged Chatrie with robbery and related firearms offenses. He moved to suppress the information the police obtained from Google. According to Chatrie, the officers had acquired that data through a Fourth Amendment search, and the warrant ostensibly authorizing that search was invalid.

The Fourth Circuit found that the Geofence Warrant “plainly violates the rights enshrined in the Fourth] Amendment. However, it denied the motion based on the good-faith exception to the Exclusionary Rule. A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed on different reasoning, holding that no search occurred because Chatrie did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in two hours’ worth of Location History data voluntarily exposed to Google. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court decided to hear the case solely on the question whether the police violated the Fourth Amendment in obtaining Chatrie’s location data.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Kagan delivered the opinion of the Court. He stated that police officers conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they acquired Chatrie’s location data from Google because an individual has a reasonable expectation of privacy in his cell-phone location information. Justice Kagan based his reasoing in Carpenter v. United States, which held that accessing cell-site location information (CSLI) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. In Carpenter, the Court reasoned that CSLI provides a “detailed” and “encyclopedic” portrait of a person’s whereabouts, and, with that, an intimate window into a person’s life. Because people compulsively carry their cell phones all the time, the Carpenter Court explained, a cell phone tracks nearly exactly the movements of its owner, and thus faithfully follows him not only through public thoroughfares but into private residences, doctor’s offices, political headquarters, and other potentially revealing locales. The Carpenter Court further observed that the newfound tracking capacity that CSLI gives the police runs against everyone —not just those under investigation—and travels back in time, making possible a form of surveillance that would have been unknown prior to the digital age.

“Most cell-phone users have no awareness of CSLI records, and would never try to retrieve them; by contrast, Google users regularly employ Location History as a personal journal. In that way, Location History resembles other private materials – e.g., emails, documents, photographs, or calendars – that even if stored on Google’s servers, a user reasonably views as his own and expects to be shielded from the inquisitive eyes of the government.” ~Justice Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court

Against that background, Justice Kagan rejected the Government’s argument that accessing only a short amount of cell-phone location information does not count as a Fourth Amendment search fails. “Even short-term monitoring can provide a wealth of detail about a person’s familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual associations,” said Justice Kagan.

Next, Justice Kagan rejected the Government arguement that the so-called third-party doctrine precludes Chatrie from invoking the Fourth Amendment’s protections. The Government’s idea is that in authorizing Google to collect, retain, and use his location information, Chatrie lost his legitimate expectation of privacy, and therefore his right to complain of a search. However, Justice Kagan emphasized that Carpenter refused to apply the third-party doctrine to CSLI, and no good reason exists to reach a different result for Location History:

“The exposure of that information to Google is merely what happens when a user avails himself of one of the services on his cell phone. The Government’s argument that generating Location History, unlike producing CSLI, is a voluntary choice is meritless.” ~Justice Kagan, U.S. Supreme Court

With that, Justice Kagan remanded the case back to the Federal Court of Appeals to decide whether, at each step of the search process, the Geofence Warrant satisfied the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime involving Search & Seizure. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Can Ozempic Decrease Violent Behavior?

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Violent Crime, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

The Journal of Criminology published a study suggesting GLP-1 drugs might potentially curb people’s violent tendencies.

Scientists at Rutgers University examined nationally representative survey data that compared former and current GLP-1 users. In people currently taking GLP-1s, they found, the link between being impulsive and being more prone to violence was noticeably weaker. These potential benefits in reducing addiction likely stem from how the drugs can affect people’s sense of impulse control and reward processing.

GLP-1 DRUGS AND BEHAVIOR

GLP-1s, by virtue of treating weight loss, can treat or reduce the risk of many health conditions closely tied to obesity, such as heart disease or knee pain. Some research, however, has also indicated these drugs have behavioral effects that go beyond simply reducing a person’s appetite. Numerous studies have found evidence that GLP-1s can decrease people’s harmful cravings for alcohol or other recreational drugs, for instance.

“As criminologists and violence researchers, that caught our attention because impulsivity and alcohol use are among the most established behavioral risk factors for violence. “We wanted to explore whether GLP-1 use might be associated with changes in the relationship between those risk factors and violent behavior. To our knowledge, no previous study had examined that question directly.” ~Daniel Semenza, Director of Research at the New Jersey Gun Violence Research Center at the Rutgers School of Public Health.

THE STUDY’S METHODOLOGY

The study reviewed data collected from a nationally representative survey of 7,521 U.S. adults. They specifically looked at 821 people who reported ever having taken a GLP-1, including 597 people currently on one. People were asked questions about their alcohol use and level of impulsivity, such as whether they would enjoy being in a high-speed chase or a fistfight. They were also asked (with a guarantee of confidentiality) if they had taken part in various violent crimes sometime in the past year.

Sure enough, the researchers noticed a sizeable difference between people taking a GLP-1 and people who used GLP-1s in the past but are no longer taking them.

“Among former users, people with higher levels of impulsivity and alcohol use reported much higher levels of violent behavior, which is consistent with decades of prior research. Among current users, those relationships were much less pronounced.” ~ Daniel Semenza

Overall, the link between impulsivity and violence was about 62% weaker in current GLP-1 users, while the link between alcohol use and violence was 52% weaker. That said, after conducting further analysis, there was less clear evidence of GLP-1s specifically affecting the relationship between alcohol use and violent behavior.

My opinion? Despite the findings, scientists still have a lot to learn about how these increasingly popular drugs could affect behavior in general. We’re only beginning to understand the broader behavioral effects of these medications. Much more research is needed before drawing firm conclusions.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Assault or any other violent crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

The Crackdown On Repeat Impaired Driving

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Between Memorial Day and Labor Day, DUI arrests spike dramatically across the country. Law enforcement agencies ramp up patrols, set up more checkpoints, and dedicate extra resources to catching impaired drivers.

Earlier this year, Washington State is updated its DUI laws in ways that could have significant consequences for drivers with prior DUI convictions. One of the most important changes involves how past offenses are counted when determining whether a DUI charge rises to a felony.

EXTENDED “LOOK-BACK” PERIOR FOR PRIOR DUI’S

Under the updated law, HB 1493 updates the “look-back” period used to determine whether an impaired driving offense becomes a felony by increasing it from 10 years to 15 years. This means that if a person has three or more prior DUI or physical control convictions within the past 15 years, a subsequent impaired driving offense can be charged as a felony rather than a gross misdemeanor. Also, older convictions that would not have counted under the previous 10-year rule may now be considered in charging and sentencing.

ADDITIONAL DUI LAW CHANGES

In addition to the extended look-back period, the new law also includes the following:

  • New sentencing alternatives for some felony DUI cases, including treatment-based options aimed at addressing substance use issues.
  • Expanded options for deferred prosecution, including limited eligibility for a second deferred prosecution in certain circumstances.
  • Clarifications to ignition interlock and license processes, which may affect driving privileges and reinstatement procedures after a DUI.

WHY DO THESE CHANGES IN THE LAW MATTER?

A DUI conviction—especially a felony impaired driving charge—can carry serious penalties. Longer jail sentences, extended probation, ignition interlock device requirements, and lasting impacts on your driving record and insurance. And because the new law looks further back into a person’s history, older convictions now heavily influence how current charges are handled.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with DUI or any other crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Public Defenders Join Lawsuit Against WA For Funding

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Legislation, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Public Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Public defenders are suing.

To be more precise, the King County Department of Public Defense is joining a lawsuit by rural counties that’s already in progress. The move shows that some advocates are running out of patience with the Legislature, which earlier this year retracted a proposal to dedicate some revenue from the state’s new “millionaires tax” for public defenders.

THE PROBLEM

For years, public defenders have reasoned and pleaded with Washington lawmakers to address a crisis in the courts by dramatically increasing what the state spends to provide attorneys for poor people. Unfortunately, the lawmakers haven’t taken much action. Public Defenders now see legal action as a way to force the Legislature’s hand to fund public defense.

“You don’t want to become a pessimist and say there’s no chance, but you realize you may have to have different approaches to motivate lawmakers. Sometimes, litigation is the only way.” ~Matt Sanders, Director of King County’s Public Defense Department

THE LAWSUIT

The lawsuit began in 2023, when Lincoln, Pacific and Yakima counties and the Washington State Association of Counties accused the state of neglecting its constitutional obligations by not adequately funding public defense. The suit suffered an initial setback in 2024. At this time a Superior Court Judge dismissed it, saying the counties lacked standing. But an appeals court disagreed last year and the state Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Under Washington’s longstanding approach, the Legislature has delegated its public defense obligations to the counties. This forces the counties to shoulder almost all those expenses, which total hundreds of millions of dollars each year. The counties claim the system is broken. They argue they can’t raise enough money at the local level to provide all their defendants with adequate counsel. Although the Legislature boosted its spending last year, the counties want much more.

WHY DOES THIS MATTER?

The debate matters because funding struggles and heavy caseloads have led to attorney shortages and uneven services across Washington, sometimes depriving defendants of representation and hampering prosecutions. The state Supreme Court has scheduled lower caseloads for defenders to reduce burnout and attract more recruits over time. For some counties, the new standards could exacerbate budget and staffing woes in the short term.

My opinion? Public defenders are indeed overworked. The situation is driven by systemic underfunding, high caseloads, and the growing complexity of criminal cases. This overwork not only affects the mental health and retention of attorneys but also undermines the constitutional right to effective legal representation. We urgently need reform in the public defense system.

Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with a crime. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.