All posts by Alexander Ransom

Nitazene: More Potent Than Fentanyl

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

New, Dangerous Synthetic Opioid in D.C., Emerging in Tri-State Area

Photo Courtesy of the DEA

Nitazenes, a class of synthetic opioids with no approved medical use, are emerging as a serious concern in the United States due to their extreme potency and association with overdose deaths.

WHAT ARE NITAZENES?

Nitazenes (benzimidazole-opioids) are a class of extremely potent novel synthetic opioids. First developed in the 1950s by researchers in Switzerland as an opioid analgesic alternative to morphine, nitazenes were never approved for medical use.

Beginning in 2019, nitazenes emerged more widely on the illicit drug market in Europe. Since then, nitazenes have been identified on nearly every continent, including North America, South America, Asia, and Oceania. Due to their recent emergence, comprehensive data on the spread of nitazenes are not available. Limited data described in this report suggest that nitazene use is a growing trend in North America and that availability is likely spreading across the Americas. As they have emerged across the globe, illicit manufacturers have continuously synthesized new and chemically distinct types of nitazenes. Today, at least 13 different types of nitazenes have been identified.

WHY AND HOW DO PEOPLE USE NITAZENES?

People may use nitazenes for the same reasons that they use other opioids. Nitazene use may be motivated by self-treatment for physical, mental, or emotional disorders. They are also used to experience opioid effects, such as feelings of euphoria, relaxation, sleepiness, and reduced pain. Nitazenes are frequently mixed with or counterfeited as other drugs (e.g., heroin, fentanyl, benzodiazepines, or other synthetic drugs) to increase potency and cut costs. Nitazenes are available in many forms, including pills, powders, and sprays – both in “pure” form and mixed with other drugs.

DANGERS OF NITAZENES

Nitazenes are highly addictive and continued use can lead to dependency. Although studies about nitazene dependence and withdrawal are limited, nitazene withdrawal has a high potential to be severe and painful. Nitazenes can also cause dizziness, nausea, vomiting, disorientation, loss of consciousness, and seizures.

Like other opioids, nitazenes present a high risk of central nervous system or respiratory depression, as well as cardiac arrest. Nitazenes present an especially high risk for overdose and overdose mortality, due to their high potency. Nitazene potency varies significantly, but all nitazenes are much more potent than natural (non-synthetic) opioids, such as morphine.

OVERDOSE STATISTICS

At least 2,000 deaths have been associated with nitazenes nationwide since 2019. For example, Tennessee saw a four-fold increase in nitazene-involved overdose deaths between 2020 and 2021.

NITAZENES IN THE AMERICAS

Regional trends in the opioid epidemic are often first identified in the United States and Canada, including the prior emergence of fentanyl and xylazine. Both countries are recognized as the global epicenters of the opioid epidemic and support robust substance use surveillance systems. Nitazenes were first identified in the street drug supplies of both countries in late 2019 and early 2020. Since then, other findings indicate that nitazene use is continuing to spread on the continent.

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.

WA Court Upholds Conspiracy Conviction For Defendant Who Conspired With Another To Shoot Himself

Assault, Bellingham Defense Attorney, Conspiracy, Drive-By Shooting, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Contrary to popular belief, you CAN be convicted of committing crimes if you’re the victim of your own conduct. Criminal Conspiracy is one of those crimes. In State v. Floe, No. 59948-1-II (July 29, 2025), the WA Court of Appeals held that a defendant who gave his sister a gun and persuaded her to shoot him at work so he could file an L&I claim can be held criminally liable for Conspiracy to Commit Assault  Second Degree and Conspiracy to Commit Drive-By Shooting.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

On October 7, 2021, someone shot Mr. Floe outside of the Shelton Department of Corrections (DOC) office. At the time, DOC employed Floe. That same day, he signed a Department of Labor and Industries Report of Accident affirming his gunshot wound occurred on the job.

Police interviewed Floe at the hospital. He told the officers that the morning had begun with a workout at a gym. When Floe arrived at work following his workout, his sister, Ms. Harris, brought him breakfast and then drove away. Floe reported that after Ms. Harris left, he was shot. Floe told the interviewing officers that he did not know who shot him. He described the individual as wearing a hoodie and having a “male gait.”

Following their interviews with Floe and Harris, police continued to investigate the shooting. Surveillance footage and neighborhood interviews led officers to believe that Harris’ SUV was still present on scene at the time Floe was shot contrary to his prior statements. Police also deployed a tracking dog but found no trace of the male individual described by Floe as running from the scene.

After more interviews with police, Floe admitted that he convinced his sister to shoot him. The State subsequently charged Floe with Second Degree Assault, Conspiracy to Commit Second Degree Assault, Drive-By Shooting, Conspiracy to Commit Drive-By Shooting, False Reporting and Forgery.

Floe filed and argued pre-trial motions to dismiss. However, the trial court rejected Floe’s arguments. At a bench trial, Floe was found guilty of all charges except the Forgery charge. Floe appealed on arguments that he was not prosecutable because he was a victim of the crimes of Assault Second Degree and Drive by Shooting.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The WA Court of Appeals reasoned that Floe was complicit in the crimes he committed against himself, saying that Floe initiated the plan and convinced Harris to carry out the Assault and Driveby Shooting. Moreover, Floe did more than merely consent to these crimes. Here, Floe came up with the plan, convinced Harris to assist him, and provided Harris with the gun she used during the crimes.

Next, the Court addressed the merits of Floe’s Conspiracy conviction. It stated that the appropriate focus of a conspiracy charge is on the conspiratorial agreement, not the specific criminal object or objects. To obtain a conviction, all the State needs to prove is that the conspirators agreed to undertake a criminal scheme and that they took a substantial step in furtherance of the conspiracy.

“Because Floe was charged with conspiracy to commit second degree assault and drive-by shooting, it is immaterial whether he was a victim of the conspiracy because Floe had already engaged in the criminalized conduct—agreeing to and taking a substantial step toward causing the performance of a crime with another, Harris. Floe’s argument based on the plain language of the statutes defining second degree assault and drive-by shooting fails.” ~WA Court of Appeals

With that, the WA Court of Appeals affirmed Mr. Floe’s  convictions.

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.

The Problems With AI-Generated Police Reports

Artificial Intelligence, Bellingham Defense Attorney, law enforcement, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, police, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Technology, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

AI-written police reports spark efficiency debate | Digital Watch Observatory

A small but growing number of police departments are adopting software products that use AI to draft police reports for officers. Jay Stanley, a Senior Policy Analyst for the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, recently published a six-page white paper explaining why it police departments should not use Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology to wrtite police reports. 

Why Are Police Reports So Important to Criminal Investigations?

Police reports play an important role in criminal investigations and prosecutions. Introducing novel AI language-generating technology into the criminal justice system raises significant civil liberties and civil rights concerns. Police reports play a crucial role in our justice system. They are central to the criminal proceedings that determine people’s innocence, guilt, and punishment, and are often the only official account of what took place during a particular incident.

How Does AI Assist In Drafting Police Reports?

The concept behind the AI products –the most prominent of which is sold by the police technology company Axon – is that an officer can select a body camera video file and have the audio of that file transcribed. A large language model (LLM) like ChatGPT is then used to turn that transcript into a first-person narrative for the officer in the typical format of a police report. The officer can then edit the file before swearing to its veracity and submitting it.

According to the ACLU, the problems with this concept fall into four main issues:

1. Problems With AI Itself.

The technology, as anyone who has experimented with LLMs like ChatGPT knows, is quirky and unreliable and prone to making up facts. AI is also biased. Because LLMs are trained on something close to the entire Internet, they inevitably absorb the racism, sexism, and other biases that permeate our culture. Even if an AI program doesn’t make explicit errors or exhibit obvious biases, it could still spin things in subtle ways that an officer doesn’t even notice.

2. Using Body Camera Transcripts For Creating AI Police Reports Raises Significant Issues Around Evidence and Memory.

Human memory — unlike video recordings — is extremely malleable. Subsequent information about an event can literally change a person’s memory of what took place. That’s why it’s important that an officer’s subjective experiences and memories of an incident be memorialized before they are contaminated by an AI’s body camera-based storytelling. But if the police report is just an AI rehash of the body camera video, it may write over certain facts or details the officer might have otherwise recorded. Worst-case scenario, the technology allows officers to be inaccurate and/or lie.

3. AI Raises Serious Questions About Transparency.

Given the novel, experimental nature of AI-generated police reports, it’s important for the public to understand what’s going on so that independent experts can evaluate the technology, and communities and their elected representatives can decide whether they want the police officers that serve them to use it. And it’s vital that defendants in criminal cases be able to interrogate the evidence against them. Yet, much of the operation of these systems remains mysterious.

4. Forcing Police To Write Down the Reasons For Use of Discretionary Power Reminds Them of the Legal Limits of Their Auithority.

A police officer’s written justifications for things like stops, frisks, searches & seizures are also reviewed by their supervisors. The supervisor uses what’s written to identify when an officer might not know or observe those limits. A shift to AI-drafted police reports would sweep away these important accountability roles that reports play within police departments and within the minds of officers.

For these reasons, the ACLU does not believe police departments should allow officers to use AI to generate draft police reports. As their white paper describes, AI report-writing technology removes important human elements from police procedures. It is too new, too untested, too unreliable, too opaque, and too biased to be inserted into our criminal justice 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.

The “Ruse” Tactics of ICE May Violate Constitutional Rights

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Constitutional Rights, Fourth Amendment, Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE), Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Who are these people?' Masked immigration agents challenge local police, sow fear in L.A. - Los Angeles Times

Photo Courtesy of Carlin Stiehl/Los Angeles Times

During the first 100 days of President Donald J. Trump’s second term, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has arrested and deported thousands of illegal aliens. The undocumented immigrants are broadly labelled as criminals who threaten public safety and national security.

Although some undocuments immigrants are criminals, many of them are not. They are  hardworking individuals simply going about their daily lives — working, commuting, and spending time at home with families.

Unfortunately, ICE has used racial profiling and intimidation tactics that instill fear and confusion in communities and stoke mistrust in the police. ICE deploys “ruse” tactics to gain warrantless entry into people’s homes or lure them out. Ruses are a tactic used frequently by ICE in investigating and arresting non-citizens. Since 2013, hundreds of reported raids include those involving ICE’s use of ruses.

WHAT IS AN “ICE RUSE?”

    • Impersonating local law enforcement: ICE agents frequently pose as local police officers, detectives, or probation officers to gain trust or induce individuals to open their doors or cooperate. They might wear plain clothes, wear uniforms labeled “POLICE,” or even vests that resemble local law enforcement uniforms, while concealing any ICE identification.
    • Fabricating investigations: Agents might claim to be investigating a fake crime or a fake crime suspect to identify and locate the targeted individual. They could show a picture of a “suspect” and use a name that matches someone in the household to trick residents into revealing information or letting them inside.
    • Misrepresenting purpose: Agents may request to “take a quick look around” or “come in to talk,” without explicitly stating they are ICE or seeking to make an arrest. This tactic aims to obtain consent to enter the home without the individual realizing they have the right to refuse entry.
    • Using phone ruses: ICE agents may also employ ruses over the phone to locate targets. These could include pretending to be local police asking questions, asking the person to meet them regarding a fake criminal case, claiming to have found a lost ID and needing to arrange a pickup, or contacting them about a court date or updated contact information. 
WHY DO SOME RUSE TACTICS VIOLATE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS?
Under the law, police officers, including ICE, can sometimes employ deceptive tactics in investigations, According to the Harvard Law Review, however, these ruses must generally be within legal boundaries and not violate constitutional rights. For instance, without a judicial warrant, ICE agents cannot force entry into a home and rely on trickery or deception to obtain consent, which raises questions about the voluntariness of that consent.
WHAT CAN PEOPLE IN IMMIGRANT COMMUNITIES DO TO PREVENT UNLAWFUL ARREST, SEARCH, SEIZURE AND DEPORTATION?

In the meantime, people in immigrant communities can defend themselves by knowing their rights. Anybody confronted by law enforcement — whether undocumented or not — can and should do their best to verify the officers’ identity and purpose, document the encounter, and report what happened. Community members who know their rights can lawfully prevent ICE from entering their homes and protect themselves and their loved ones from such deceptive practices. More information in English and Spanish can be found here.

Please review my Search & Seizure Guide and 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.

The Law On Open Containers In Vehicles

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Open Container, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Summer is here. And unfortunately, warm-weather fun brings warm-weather dangers. More traffic fatalities occur on Washington’s roads during summer months than any other time of year. In order to crack down on dangerous driving, law enforcement puts extra emphasis on traffic patrols. According to the Washington Traffic Safety Commission, there were 253 fatal crashes on state roadways between June and September 2024.

What if you’re found drinking alcohol in a car, but your driver hasn’t had a drop? How can you expect law enforcement to react? Will you get pulled over for drinking in the passenger seat?

WASHINGTON’S LAW ON OPEN CONTAINERS: RCW 46.61.519

Under RCW 46.61.519, Drinking alcohol in a vehicle on the highway is a traffic infraction. It’s illegal to have an open container with an alcoholic beverage in a vehicle at all, regardless if the driver drinks from it. The statute describes an “open container” as “a bottle, can, or other receptacle containing an alcoholic beverage if the container has been opened or a seal broken or the contents partially removed.”

CAN THE DRIVER GET PULLED OVER FOR THE PASSENGER’S OPEN CONTAINER?

Yes. Open containers in vehicles are considered a primary violation, meaning you can get pulled over for having one. The primary reason passengers cannot drink is to prevent driver’s access. If a passenger has an open container, they can easily pass it to the driver. Law enforcement would have no way to determine if the driver had been drinking and simply passed the container to a passenger.

CAN A DRIVER GET PULLED OVER FOR DISGUISING AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE?

Yes. Under RCW 46.61.5195, it is an additional infraction to try and disguise an alcoholic beverage in order to get around this state code. These traffic infractions come with a fine of $145.

WHAT ARE THE EXCEPTIONS TO THE STATUTE?

There are some exceptions to Washington’s “Open Container” statute. The code does not apply for open containers:

  • In public services commercially chartered for group use, like a party bus.
  • In the living quarters of motors homes or campers.
  • With passengers in a licensed for-hire vehicle (not rideshares), like a limousine.
  • When a privately-owned vehicle is driven by a licensed employee under normal work conditions.

Patrols will be looking for dangerous behaviors like speeding and drunk driving. Please contact my office if you, a friend or family member are charged with Reckless Driving, DUI or any other vehicular crimes. Hiring an effective and competent defense attorney is the first and best step toward justice.

Murders Are Down Nationwide

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Homicide & Manslaughter, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,
Illustration of an arrow spiking up then down, made up of yellow tape with "Crime Scene Do Not Cross" written across.

Illustration by Ben Kothe / The Atlantic

NPR reports that In 2024, murders fell by at least 14% across the U.S. City officials often point to policing as a key reason, and that can play an important role, but crime analysts say there’s more to it.

THE DATA

These conclusions come according to analyses by the data firm AH Datalytics and the Council on Criminal Justice. Official data from the FBI goes only through 2023, but shows similar drops. Early analyses from AH Datalytics suggest the drop will be even bigger in 2025. Crime analysts say the reasons behind these drops are complex and broad.

WHAT CONTRIBUTED TO THE DECREASE IN MURDER & HOMICIDE?

Researchers who study crime caution that no one thing causes violence to rise or fall. But crime analysts have zeroed in on what they say is a primary driver of the rise and subsequent decline: the COVID-19 Pandemic.

All of a sudden, there were a lot of young people — who are more likely to commit crimes than older people — at home, with little to do. And a vital support system was ripped away: public services. Between March and May of 2020, the country’s local government workforce shrank by nearly 10%.

Five years after the start of the pandemic, local government employment is finally back at pre-pandemic levels. Municipalities are also bringing in more money, and their spending has rebounded as well. That means many services are coming back — and with them, places where young people can find support.

“We’re spending money on stuff, and when stuff is nicer, people have places to go. It creates jobs. It creates environments where people are hanging out. It’s not the broken-windows concept of ‘we need to arrest people for graffiti,’ but it’s more like the kind of idealized version of broken windows that, ‘if we make things nice and people are around it, it provides a means of interrupting cycles of violence.” ~Jeff Asher, co-founder of AH Datalytics

In Detroit, Police Chief Bettison credits some of the murder decline there to changes in policing techniques and to higher officer staffing levels. But he also sees things more holistically.

“It is not one thing that drives violence. And so we are always consistently looking for the root causes,” he says.

Two years ago, the city invested $10 million in six community organizations. Each group was assigned a section of the city. Their goal was to reduce violence in that area using what is known as community violence intervention.

Negus Vu is the executive director of one of those groups, the Detroit People’s Community, which is also known as The People’s Action. The essential element to the group’s work, Vu says, is building relationships with young people who may be at risk of committing violence.

“You have outreach workers who have lived, shared experiences that are the ones who establish these relationships. And because these relationships are genuine and sincere, they’re able to refer them to get wraparound services such as substance abuse, job referrals, therapy. If you meet people’s needs, they’re less likely to turn to violence.” ~Negus Vu, Executive Director of the Detroit People’s Community.

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

Incarceration Affects Mortality

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Jail, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Prison, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Studies, Uncategorized, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Incarcerated People Remain Vulnerable to the Worst Ravages of a Warming World | NOVA | PBS

Photo credit: Bob Jagendorf / Flickr (CC BY-NC 2.0)

The US has the highest incarceration rates in the developed world. A (rather grim) new study by JAMA Network Open shows that incarceration has long-term negative effects on health and mortality. People who were incarcerated in 2008 had a 39% higher risk of dying and more than three times the risk of dying from an overdose by 2019 than people who weren’t.

And the risk of incarceration doesn’t just affect the people inside. Researchers also found that county incarceration rates were associated with increased all-cause mortality risks for nonincarcerated residents.

THE STUDY’S DESIGN, SETTING & PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study used data from the Mortality Disparities in American Communities (MDAC) study, linking over 3 million 2008 American Community Survey (ACS) respondents to National Death Index data from the respondents’ 2008 interview date through December 31, 2019, or their date of death, and county incarceration data from the Vera Institute of Justice. The sample included US adults 18 years or older, representing individuals in group quarters such as prisons and jails but excluding those in counties lacking jail incarceration rate data. Data were analyzed from July 5, 2023, to November 10, 2024.

RESULTS

The study includes a total of 3 255 000 individuals (51.3% female), of whom 45 000 (0.93%) were incarcerated at the time of the 2008 ACS administration. The mean (SD) county jail incarceration rate was 372 (358) per 100 000 people. During the study period, 431 000 individuals (11.6%) died from any cause, and 5500 (0.2%) died from overdoses. Incarcerated individuals had a higher risk of all-cause mortality (hazard rate [HR], 1.39 [95% CI, 1.33-1.45]) and an increased risk of overdose mortality (HR, 3.08 [95% CI, 2.70-3.52]) compared with nonincarcerated individuals. A 10% increase in county jail incarceration rates was associated with 4.6 (95% CI, 3.8-5.5) additional all-cause deaths per 100 000 people.

CONCLUSIONS & RELEVANCE

The results showed how urgently improved health care during and after incarceration is needed. Furthermore, JAMA Network specifically pointed to community-based primary care as a potential solution:

“Individuals who were incarcerated faced significantly higher risks of death, particularly from overdoses, and elevated county incarceration rates exacerbated individual-level mortality risks. These findings suggest the need for reforms in criminal justice and public health policies to address these elevated risks and their widespread implications.” ~JAMA Network

Being jailed and/or imprisoned negatively impacts one’s health and mortality. 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.

Washington Supreme Court Issues Interim Order on Public Defense Standards & Caseloads

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Public Defense, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Photo Courtesy of Mother Jones

The Washington Supreme Court issued an Order on caseload standards the Court has adopted for indigent criminal defense services. Justices unanimously agreed to set the new statewide standards, which call for public defenders to handle a maximum of 47 felony cases or 120 misdemeanor cases in a year, depending on one’s primary area of practice. The current thresholds are 150 felonies and 400 misdemeanors.

The Order is a summary explanation of the new caseload standards, which permit full implementation to be achieved over a period of time. The revised caseload standards will be integrated into court rules once the Court’s review of all of the proposed standards is complete.

The Order includes three key provisions:

  1. Specific caseload standards for different types of cases, which should be accomplished as soon as “reasonably possible,” and allowing for a phased approach to implementation;
  2. Declining to mandate a method for case counting and weighting, however, encouraging the use of case weighting; and
  3. Requiring evaluation of the progress and impacts of implementation three years after the effective date of the new caseload standards.

WHY DID THE WA SUPREME COURT MAKE RULINGS ON PUBLIC DEFENSE CASELOADS?

In 2024, Revisions to Washington public defense standards were recommended by the Washington State Bar Association (WSBA) and its Council on Public Defense (CPD). This happened after two years of intense study of the growing crisis involving steep declines in the number of public defense attorneys due to heavy caseloads and other factors, both in Washington and nationally.

WHAT DID THE WA SUPREME COURT DECIDE?

The Supreme Court’s adopted standards for indigent defense included lowering the maximum caseloads for public defense attorneys, revising some qualification requirements for public defense attorneys, and setting minimum support staffing requirements for public defense attorneys and offices.

While the Court has not completed its full review of recommended changes to public defense standards, “in advance of a full decision on all parts of the CPD’s proposal, we provide this summary communication of the Court’s conclusions on caseloads,” according to the Order. “The reality is that many aspects of indigent criminal defense services vary by structure and location, so the Court is adopting an approach which accommodates that diversity while fostering real and meaningful reductions in caseloads as soon as possible, where necessary.”

My opinion? Good decision. Studies show Public Defenders Are dangerously overworked.  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.

Crime Lab Supervisors Cannot Testify About Test Results Reached By Non-testifying Subordinates

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Confrontation Clause, Hearsay, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Vehicular Assault, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Wilson Elser | Reuters

In State v. Hall-Haught, No. 102405-3 (May 29, 2025), the WA Supreme Court reversed the defendant’s conviction for Vehicular Assault and held the Confrontation Clause prohibits crime laboratory supervisors from testifying about test results reached by a nontestifying subordinate.  In short, if the analysis hinges upon whether a statement from a lab analyst is true, that analyst must personally testify for their opinion to be admissible at trial.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Mrs. Hall-Haught was involved in a head-on collision with another. The collision caused the trunk of her vehicle to pop open, spewing drug paraphernalia across the roadway. Law enforcement responded to the scene of the accident. Both individuals were transported to the hospital, so the officer did not perform any field sobriety tests on Hall-Haught. Washington State Trooper Williams, upon arrival at the hospital, observed that Hall-Haught had bloodshot and watery eyes, and dilated pupils. Trooper Williams was granted a search warrant to test Hall-Haught’s blood. Hall-Haught’s lab results showed 1.5±0.40 nanograms per milliliter of tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in her blood, but no alcohol was detected.

The State charged Hall-Haught with Vehicular Assault, alleging that she had driven or operated a vehicle either (i) in a reckless manner, and/or (ii) while under the influence of intoxicating liquor or any drug, and/or (iii) with disregard for the safety of others.

At her jury trial, the State called Ms. Harris, a supervisor with the Washington State Patrol Toxicology Laboratory. Harris testified that she was not the technician who tested the blood samples, but that she reviewed and signed off on the lab report of Hall-Haught’s blood samples testing. Harris testified to her experience and training, to include working as a prior bench scientist at the laboratory, and about her knowledge about the Washington State Patrol (WSP) standard operating procedures. Harris testified that as a supervisor, she no longer examined and tested blood samples, but she reviewed the work of the bench scientists.

Ms. Krantz was the forensic analyst that performed the toxicology examination and produced the report on Hall-Haught’s blood samples. The State called Harris instead of Krantz to testify about the toxicology results. Hall-Haught objected to Harris’ testimony and argued that introducing the test results without the testimony of Krantz, the technician who performed the blood test, violated her right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against her. The trial court admitted the lab test results over Hall-Haught’s objection.

Hall-Haught was convicted of vehicular assault. She timely appealed. Eventually, the WA Supreme Court granted review to address the issue of whether the Confrontation Clause is violated when forensic test results are admitted into evidence without testimony from the lab analyst who conducted the testing.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

The Court began by saying the Sixth Amendment Confrontation Clause and the Washington Constitution provide that a defendant in a criminal prosecution shall have the right to confront or meet the witnesses against them. The Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had a prior opportunity for cross-examination. Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53-54, 124 S. Ct. 1354, 158 L. Ed. 2d 177 (2004).

A statement is testimonial if the primary purpose of the interrogation is to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution. Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, 822, 126 S. Ct. 2266, 165 L. Ed. 2d 224 (2006). It is nontestimonial if the primary purpose of the interrogation is to enable police assistance to meet an ongoing emergency. Testimonial statements are barred at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant.

Here, the WA Supreme Court held the lab toxicology report in this case was testimonial and therefore inadmissible.

“The record before us shows that Hall-Haught’s blood was seized as evidence to further establish the cause of the collision,” said the Court. It reasoned that WSP Trooper Williams testified that Hall-Haught was the “causing driver,” but she was not cited at the scene because the investigation was still in process.  He applied for a search warrant to obtain Hall-Haught’s blood sample based on the totality of the circumstances which included (i) a cannabis pipe and paraphernalia at the scene, (ii) Hall-Haught’s admission of regular cannabis use, (iii) the mechanism of the collision, and (iv) Hall-Haught’s bloodshot and watery eyes, and dilated pupils. Hall-Haught’s blood was sent to the WSP toxicology laboratory that is specifically used for law enforcement DUI drug testing cases.

Next, the Court held the WSP toxicology lab report was admitted to prove Hearsay. A court analyzing a confrontation clause claim must identify the role that a given out-of-court statement served at trial. If the expert witness communicates an absent witness’ out-of-court statement in support of their own opinion, and the statement provides that support only if true, then the out-of-court statement is admitted for its truth.

The Hearsay in this case was Hall-Haught’s lab reports. They were introduced to show the truth of what they asserted: that Hall-Haught had cannabis in her system and that it was a contributing factor to the collision. Importantly, however, the Court pointed out the glaring fact that Ms. Krantz was an absent witness:

“The record provides no information as to Krantz’s unavailability to testify or that Hall-Haught had a prior opportunity to cross-examine her. Therefore, under the confrontation clause, Krantz was a “witness” Hall-Haught was entitled to confront at her trial.” ~WA Supreme Court

With that, the WA Supreme Court held that Ms. Hall-Haught’s Confrontation Clause rights were violated by Ms. Krantz’s absence at trial. “Ms. Krantz, the analyst who performed the testing and wrote the report, was the real witness against Hall-Haught and not Ms. Harris,” said the Court.

My opinion? Excellent decision. Criminal defendants must be empowered to rigorously test the State’s evidence. Scrutinizing the results generated by the toxicology laboratory is an effective means of subjecting the State’s awesome prosecutorial powers to such scrutiny.

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.

WA Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Large-Capacity Magazines for Firearms

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Firearm, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Gun rights group files challenge against Washington's recently-passed large-capacity magazine ban – KIRO 7 News Seattle

In Washington v. Gator’s Custom Guns the WA Supreme Court upheld Washington state’s ban on selling or manufacturing large-capacity magazines. The majority concluded that large-capacity magazines are not “arms” within the scope of the state or federal constitutional right to bear arms. Moreover, the ability to purchase them is “not necessary to the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense.”

BACKGROUND FACTS

In 2022, the Washington State Legislature enacted ESSB 5078. The legislation prohibits the manufacture, import, distribution, or sale of any “large capacity magazine” (LCM) in Washington. LCMs are defined as “ammunition feeding devices with the capacity capable to accept more than 10 rounds of ammunition.”

Gator’s Custom Guns, a Kelso-based gun store, allegedly continued to sell prohibited LCMs after ESSB 5078 went into effect. In July 2023, the Washington attorney general issued a civil investigative demand. In August, Gator’s filed a petition to set aside the demand as invalid and unenforceable. Gator’s alleged that ESSB 5078 violates the right to bear arms as protected by article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution. In September, the State separately filed a CPA enforcement action against Gator’s and its owner. Gator’s answer raised the unconstitutionality of ESSB 5078 under both constitutions as an affirmative defense. The Cowlitz County Superior Court ordered the two cases consolidated. After some legal wrangling, the WA Supreme Court granted direct review to decide the case.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Washington Supreme Court justices ruled 7-2 that the new state law doesn’t violate Americans’ right to bear arms because “large capacity magazines are not ‘arms.’”

“We conclude that LCMs are not protected by article I, section 24 because (1) LCMs are not instruments designed as weapons, (2) LCMs are not traditionally or commonly used for self-defense, and (3) the right to purchase LCMs is not among the ancillary rights necessary to the realization of the core right to bear arms in self-defense.” ~WA Supreme Court

The Court reasoned that first, LCMs are not weapons—they are attachments to weapons, or accessories. Further, it is not factually accurate to say that LCMs are “integral components” of firearms. Thus, LCMs are not required for a firearm to function. Moreover, LCM’s are not necessary for self-defense. Here, the Court mentioned it was presented with no credible and persuasive evidence or argument that LCMs are commonly used for such a purpose.

The WA Supreme Court further reasoned that the right to purchase LCMs was not an ancillary right necessary to the realization of the core right to possess a firearm in self-defense:

“In contrast, without an LCM, a semiautomatic firearm is still capable of firing (up to 10 rounds, if it is equipped with a magazine falling outside ESSB 5078’s restriction, or 1 round at a time, if it is equipped with none at all) until the operator must simply reload to continue operating the firearm as desired. This fulfills the firearm’s purpose as a tool for realizing the core right of self-defense.” ~WA Supreme Court

For the aforementioned reasons, the WA Supreme Court found that ESSB 5078 complies with the constitutional safeguards of the Second Amendment as well as article I, section 24 of the Washington Constitution.

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