Category Archives: Bellingham Defense Attorney

U.S. Supreme Court Addresses “True Threats”

Bellingham Defense Attorney, First Amendment, Harassment, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Stalking, True Threats, United States Supreme Court, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Supreme Court: Your Facebook Threats Aren't Necessarily Real Threats

In Counterman v. Colorado, No. 22-138 (June 27, 2023)., the U.S. Supreme Court held that Facebook threats aren’t necessarily real threats. In order to constitute a “true threat,” the prosecution must prove that the defendant had some subjective understanding of the threatening nature of his or her statements.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

From 2014 to 2016, the defendant Mr. Counterman sent hundreds of Facebook messages to C. W., a local singer and musician. The two had never met, and C. W. did not respond. In fact, she tried repeatedly to block him, but each time, Counterman created a new Facebook account and resumed contacting C. W. Several of his messages envisaged violent harm befalling her.

Counterman’s messages put C. W. in fear and upended her daily existence. C. W. stopped walking alone, declined social engagements, and canceled some of her performances. C. W. eventually contacted the authorities.

The State charged Mr. Counterman under Colorado’s Stalking Statutue. This crime makes it unlawful to repeatedly make any form of communication with another person” in “a manner that would cause a reasonable person to suffer serious emotional distress and does cause that person to suffer serious emotional distress.”

Mr. Counterman moved to dismiss the charge on First Amendment grounds, arguing that his messages were not “true threats” and therefore could not form the basis of a criminal prosecution. Following Colorado law, the trial court rejected that argument under an objective standard, finding that a reasonable person would consider the messages threatening.

Counterman appealed, arguing that the First Amendment required the State to show not only that his statements were objectively threatening, but also that he was aware of their threatening character. The Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed and affirmed his conviction. The Colorado Supreme Court denied review. Instead, the U.S. Supreme Court stepped in to handle the appeal.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

Justice Kagan delived the opinion of the majority court. Preliminarily, she began by saying the First Amendment permits restrictions upon the content of speech in a few limited areas. Among these historic and traditional categories of unprotected expression is true threats.

“True threats are serious expressions conveying that a speaker means to commit an act of unlawful violence,” said Justice Kagan. “The existence of a threat depends not on the mental state of the author, but on what the statement conveys to the person on the receiving end.”

Justice Kagan elaborated that the State is required to show the defendant had the mental state to make a true threat. She explained that with regard to defamation, a public figure cannot recover for the injury that someone’sstatement causes unless the speaker acted with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not. The same idea arises in the law respecting obscenity and incitement to unlawful conduct.

“And that same reasoning counsels in favor of requiring a subjective element in a true-threats case. A speaker’s fear of mistaking whether a statement is a threat, fear of the legal system getting that judgment wrong, and fear of incurring legal costs all may lead a speaker to swallow words that are in fact not true threats. Insistence on a subjective element in unprotected-speech cases, no doubt, has a cost: Even as it lessens chill of protected speech, it makes prosecution of otherwise proscribable, and often dangerous, communications harder. But a subjective standard is still required for true threats, lest prosecutions chill too much protected, non-threatening expression.” ~Justice Kagain, U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Kagan held that a Reckless Standard is the correct approach in determining the proper mens rea for these cases. A recklessness standard shows that a person “consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause harm to another.”

“Requiring purpose or knowledge would make it harder for States to counter true threats—with diminished returns for protected expression. Using a recklessness standard also fits with this Court’s defamation decisions, which adopted a recklessness rule more than a half-century ago.” ~Justice Kagain, U.S. Supreme Court.

Justice Kagan concluded by saying the State of Colorado wrongfully prosecuted Counterman in accordance with an objective standard and not a “reckless standard.” This was a violation of the First Amendment. With that, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed Mr. Counterman’s Stalking conviction.

My opinion? Justice Kagan’s “Recklessness Approach” to stalking cases is certainly creative. And it seems to be upheld by caselaw.  I agree with her reasoning that recklessness strikes the right balance. It offers enough breathing space for protected speech without sacrificing too many of the benefits of enforcing laws against true threats.

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

Speed Cameras In Demand As Fatal Crashes Rise in WA State

Bellingham Defense Attorney, DUI, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Reckless Driving, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Traffic Infractions, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Here's the really annoying thing about speed cameras: They work | CBC News

Informative article in the Olympian by journalist Martin Bilbao describes Governor Inslee’s efforts to acquire more traffic cameras in WA as traffic fatalities rose. The data showed a concerning lack of progress for Target Zero, a state safety plan that aims to eliminate fatal and serious injury collisions by 2030.

Traffic fatalities in Washington state increased about 39% from 538 in 2019 to 750 in 2022, according to data presented by Shelly Baldwin, director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. However, she cautioned that 2022 data was preliminary.

“We have not seen such a rapid increase since back in the ‘70s . . . We want to keep in mind that these are not just numbers. These are families and friends and co-workers whose lives have been lost and left the people around them grieving.” ~Shelly Baldwin, director of the Washington Traffic Safety Commission

The data show eight counties account for about 60% of all fatalities. The top three are in the state’s population center — King, Pierce and Snohomish counties. Thurston County ranks seventh in fatalities, but is sixth in population. The state’s traffic fatality rate per 100 vehicle miles traveled reached 1.16 in 2021 compared to 1.37 at the national level, Baldwin shared. She said impaired driving, followed by speeding and distracted driving, were key risk factors in traffic fatalities.

Earlier this year, the state authorized the use of speed cameras in highway work zones with the passage of Senate Bill 5272. However, Inslee’s proposal would go further:

“The fact, we’re not doing that, frankly, is a little frustrating right now . . . I’m glad we’ve taken the first step in construction zones, but we can’t allow this carnage to continue when we have a technology that works.” ~Governor Jay Inslee

Inslee said he would direct the Washington Traffic Safety Commission to work with his staff to develop a plan for increasing the use of speed cameras. Additionally, Inslee said he supports recruiting more law enforcement personnel to enforce traffic laws.

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

New “Blake Fix” Drug Possession Law Takes Effect July 1, 2023

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

Gov. Jay Inslee signs drug possession law 'fix' | The Reflector

SB 5536, the so-called “Blake Fix,” passed the Washington State Legislature (Legislature) and was signed by Governor Jay Inslee. Its provisions involve the use and possession of drugs. Passage of the bill was welcome news for many Washington cities and counties that were rushing to pass their own ordinances.

The bill makes it a gross misdemeanor to:

  1. Knowingly possess counterfeit substances and controlled substances (hereafter “prohibited substances”); or
  2. Knowingly use prohibited substances in a public place.

This bill covers possession and use of counterfeit or controlled substances, or “hard” drugs such as fentanyl and other opioids, methamphetamine, heroin, and cocaine. Also prohibited is the knowing possession of non-prescribed legend drugs, as well as their knowing use in a public place, both classified as misdemeanors. The bill also creates a pre-trial diversion program and almost completely preempts local regulation of drug paraphernalia.

BACKGROUND

In February 2021, the Washington State Supreme Court in State v. Blake. The Blake case was immediately mired in controversy.  It declared unconstitutional Washington’s strict liability drug possession law, which criminalized the unintentional, unknowing possession of a controlled substance.

In July 2021 – and in response to the fallout from Blake– the Legislature adopted temporary  legislation making it a misdemeanor to knowingly possess prohibited substances. This temporary legislation required that law enforcement refer the individual to assessment and treatment for their first two arrests for simple possession. Upon the third arrest, the individual could be prosecuted. However, this proved nearly impossible for law enforcement to implement, given that there was no state-wide tracking system for referrals.

Fast forward to the 2022-2023 regular legislative session, which ended without passage of a new drug possession and use law. This challenge placed cities and counties in the unfortunate situation of adopting their own patchwork of possession and use laws. However, in a special session on May 16, 2023, the Legislature adopted permanent drug-related legislation in SB 5536.

DRUG POSSESSION & USE ARE GROSS MISDEMEANORS

Both knowing possession of prohibited substances and knowing use of a prohibited substance in a public place are gross misdemeanors. Gross misdemeanors typically have a maximum imprisonment time of not more than 364 days, plus a fine of not more than $5,000.

Knowing possession and knowing use of a legend drug without a prescription remains a misdemeanor. Misdemeanors have a maximum imprisonment time of not more than 90 days, plus a fine of not more than $1,000. An individual cannot be charged with both possession and use relating to the same course of conduct.

Notably, referral or diversion is no longer required. Nevertheless, law enforcement and prosecutors are encouraged to refer or divert such cases for assessment, treatment, or related services. Rather, both possession and use of controlled and counterfeit substances are punishable by imprisonment of up to 180 days or by a fine of not more than $1,000, or both. If the defendant has two or more prior convictions of possession or use, then imprisonment can be increased to up to 364 days (or the $1,000 fine, or both).

REGULATING DRUG PARAPHERNALIA

The bill regulates drug paraphernalia as follows:

  • Selling or permitting drug paraphernalia to be sold is a class 1 civil infraction.
  • Giving or permitting drug paraphernalia to be given — previously a class 1 civil infraction — is no longer prohibited.
  • Using drug paraphernalia continues to be a misdemeanor. See RCW 69.50.412(1).
  • Littering or dumping drug paraphernalia continues to be either a civil infraction, a misdemeanor, or a gross misdemeanor, depending on the quantity. See RCW 70A.200.060.

Notably, the definition of drug paraphernalia does not include cannabis-related paraphernalia or drug testing and analyzing equipment. Also, prohibitions on drug paraphernalia do not apply to distribution or use of public health supplies through pharmacies, public health programs, or other authorized community programs.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ORDINANCES

Many Washington cities and counties have passed ordinances regulating drug possession and use in the absence of permanent state legislation. Those ordinances no longer have any real effect because the state fully occupies and preempts the entire field of setting penalties for violations of the controlled substances act, and local ordinances must be consistent with chapter 69.50 RCW — see RCW 69.50.608. As described in the previous blog section, the state also preempts the field of drug paraphernalia regulation.

However, despite this state preemption, cities must adopt or incorporate state statutes into their municipal code in order to prosecute misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor cases in city municipal court — See City of Auburn v. Gauntt, 174 Wn.2d 321, 274 P.3d 1033 (2012), which held that cities with a municipal court created under chapter 3.50 RCW must prosecute misdemeanors and gross misdemeanors based on city code provisions or RCWs that have been incorporated into the code by reference.

DIVERSION PROGRAMS

The bill creates a pretrial diversion program for individuals charged with simple possession, where the defendant agrees to meaningfully engage in a treatment program in exchange for the state dismissing the charge. The judge must advise the defendant of a program’s availability at arraignment and the prosecuting attorney must consent to the defendant’s participation. Section 9 of the bill outlines all the details, and the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) article, Blake fix bill passes Legislature during one-day special session, provides additional information about the practicality of pre-trial diversion programs.

TREATMENT FACILITIES

Opioid use disorder treatment facilities (with the exception of safe injection sites) are now considered essential public facilities (EPFs). As such, cities and counties can only regulate opioid use disorder treatment facilities in the same manner in which they regulate other EPFs and health care settings. Maximum capacity cannot be imposed on these facilities. See Section 12 of the bill.

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 Courts Reimburse Defendants For Fines & Costs Associated With Drug Convictions

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

Washington Spends $100 Million To Vacate 350,000 Marijuana/Drug Convictions And Reimburse People Criminalized By Unconstitutional Law - Marijuana Moment

In a press release, WA Courts will reimburse defendants for fines or costs paid in connection with drug possession convictions that were found unconstitutional by the Washington Supreme Court.

If you made payments towards legal financial obligations (LFOs) owed in cases vacated as a result of the State v. Blake decision, you may be eligible for a refund. Refunds of LFOs previously paid are ordered when the only conviction(s) in the case are for drug possession. If there are other charges in the case, refunds will be processed on any paid fines or fees specifically related to the possession of controlled substance charge.

Development of the Blake Refund Bureau, which will operate through an online portal, is led by the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) in collaboration with local courts and county clerks, public defenders, prosecutors, impacted individuals, advocacy groups and other stakeholders.

“The intent is to have a process that is easy to navigate and will provide for a timely response for individuals to receive their refunds . . . The public will be able to search for their cases by their name or case number.” ~AOC Blake Implementation Manager Sharon Swanson.

In the landmark State vs Blake decision issued on February 25, 2021, the Washington Supreme Court ruled that the state’s drug possession law was unconstitutional and void because it did not require individuals to have knowledge of the drug possession. As a result, those convicted of drug possession on or before February 25, 2021 became eligible to have their convictions vacated and removed from their criminal record, and their paid court-ordered fines and costs — called legal financial obligations (LFOs) — reimbursed.

It is estimated that over 200,000 felony drug possession charges dating back to the 1970s may be eligible to be vacated in superior courts. An estimated additional 150,000 misdemeanor marijuana charges may also be eligible for vacation. To help offset costs to courts, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, the Washington State legislature approved $47 million for the efforts of vacating hundreds of thousands of possession charges, and adjusting sentences for thousands of incarcerated or supervised persons.

An additional $50 million dollars was set aside to reimburse individuals who paid LFOs as a result of the Blake related convictions. AOC was appointed to lead the work, including establishing a Blake Refund Bureau to administer LFO refunds to impacted individuals.

The Blake Refund Bureau portal will be accessible to the public via a link on www.courts.wa.gov. The refund bureau will provide individuals who have had their Blake convictions vacated a self-navigable database to determine if they have refunds related to their convictions. Refund requests will be submitted through an online application. Once the application has been received and an amount of refund is confirmed by the court, a refund will be issued.

While the portal exclusively operates in the processing of LFO refunds, the site will include resources to guide individuals in clearing their convictions and seeking legal help.

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.

Drivers Can’t Consent to Police Searching a Passenger’s Belongings

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Drug Offenses, felony, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Search and Seizure, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Washington Court of Appeals, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

Should Cops Be Allowed to Rip Up Your Stuff While Looking for Drugs? | The New Republic

In State v. Garner, No. 56861-6-II (2023), the WA Court of Appeals held that a driver’s consent to search their car does not extend to searching the contents of closed containers inside the car that do not belong to the driver.

BACKGROUND FACTS

A police officer arrested Mr. Garner on an outstanding warrant after stopping a car and encountering Garner as a passenger. Garner tried to flee on foot but the officer apprehended him. After placing Garner under arrest, the officer spoke with the car’s driver, who said Garner left three backpacks behind in her car. The officer asked the driver for permission to search the car and she granted it.

The officer then searched Garner’s backpacks without requesting his permission and found controlled substances. Later testing established that the controlled substances found in the backpacks were 86.9 grams of methamphetamine and 3.8 grams of heroin.

The State charged Garner with two counts of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Before trial, Garner moved to suppress evidence obtained from the warrantless search of his backpacks. The trial court denied Garner’s suppression motion. After a bench trial, the trial court found Garner guilty of both counts of possession with intent to deliver.

On appeal, Mr. Garner argued that the trial court improperly denied his suppression motion.

COURT’S ANALYSIS & CONCLUSIONS

In short, the WA Court of Appeals held that the trial court should have granted Garner’s suppression motion. It reasoned that a person’s bag or closed container heightened protection under the federal and state constitutions. It emphasized that the Washington Supreme Court has also recognized an expectation of privacy in purses, briefcases, and other traditional containers of personal belongings.

Here, the defendant passenger had a legitimate expectation of privacy in the backpacks he left inside the car when he fled from the police during a traffic stop.  He did not abandon the backpacks or relinquish his privacy interest in them because he was in the vehicle with permission, and took steps to conceal the backpacks from the officer before fleeing.

The Court of Appeals also reasoned that that the driver’s consent to search her car did not extend to Garner’s backpacks.

“Garner had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his backpacks. And while Washington case law does not squarely address whether a passenger has a reasonable expectation of privacy in items left in another’s car, our cases point to the conclusion that Garner did not relinquish his expectation of privacy when he left his backpacks in the driver’s car. Unlike the defendant in Samalia, Garner did not leave his backpacks in a stolen car. He left them in a car he had occupied with the driver’s permission.”

“And unlike the defendant in Reynolds, he did not remove the backpacks from the car and leave them on the road. Rather, Garner, who lacked housing, left his belongings with a person he knew. Moreover, Garner never disclaimed ownership of the backpacks. He took the time to put two of the backpacks on the vehicle’s rear floorboard and tried stowing the third backpack under the driver’s seat. The circumstances lend themselves to the conclusion that he intended to safeguard the backpacks until he could recover them.” ~WA Court of Appeals.

With that, the Court of Appeals reversed Garner’s convictions because the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress.

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

Federal Judge Prohibits Seattle from Enforcing Its Anti-Graffiti Law

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Federal Crimes & Prosecutions, First Amendment, Graffiti, Malicious Mischief, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , ,

Seattle court ruling halts enforcement of graffiti-related property crimes | KOMO

A U.S. district court has ruled by injunction that Seattle must temporarily cease enforcement of property crimes with regard to graffiti.

Judge Marsha Pechman of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued a preliminary injunction. It says the city’s ordinance that punishes graffiti “targets speech” and “poses a real and substantial threat of censorship.”

Seattle’s municipal code says a person is guilty of “property destruction,” a gross misdemeanor punishable by up to 364 days in jail, if “he or she… [w]rites, paints, or draws any inscription, figure, or mark of any type on any public or private building or other structure or any real or personal property owned by any other person.”

“On its face, the Ordinance sweeps so broadly that it criminalizes innocuous drawings (from a child’s drawing of a mermaid to pro-police messages written by the Seattle Police Foundation) that can hardly be said to constitute ‘visual blight’ and which would naturally wash away in the next rain storm.” ~Justice Pechman, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

The Seattle Police Department (SPD) released a statement to address the court’s ruling, stating that a lack of future enforcement is not a conscious decision by the government.

“Late yesterday afternoon, SPD received an order from a US District Court judge that enjoined, in full, enforcement of SMC 12A.080.020 – the City’s misdemeanor property destruction law. This means that until further order of the Court, SPD cannot take action on damage to property under this law. This is not a matter within SPD or City discretion; we are bound by the court order as it is written.” ~Seattle Police Department

Vandalism and graffiti have become a prominent issue in Seattle, and the city government is expected to request an expedited reconsideration of the ruling.

The department added, “We know, as evidenced by the thousands of calls for service we receive each year reporting acts of vandalism and other forms of property damage that property damage is, in fact, a crime that is of significance to community members.”

My opinion? This is a thorny subject. Many cities around the US deal with the problem of graffiti art everyday. Sometimes it may be a name, a threat, an image, a symbol, or a brilliant canvas of the graffiti artist’s imagination. Whatever the case, it usually involves painting something on someone else’s property. So, whose rights should win out? The artist’s right to free speech or the property owner’s right to the quiet use and enjoyment of their own property?

Generally, one cannot exercise a right, even one guaranteed by the constitution, if it interferes with another person’s right. While Americans do not have a right to be free from annoyance by the speech or expression of another, even through artistic means, they do have the right to the exclusive use and possession of property. Thus, most graffiti art will not be protected as free speech when it is done on someone else’s property, and the property owner does not consent.

The parameters of the federal court’s ruling may invalidate similar anti-graffiti ordinances in  Washington and other States.

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

Use of License Plate Readers Spreading Across Washington

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

Automated License Plate Readers (ALPRs) | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Excellent article by journalist Natalie Swaby says cities across Washington are turning to technology and using automated license plate reader cameras to combat crime.

The use of automated license plate readers (ALPR) is spreading fast across city and state law enforcement agencies.

WHAT ARE AUTOMATED LICENCE PLATE READERS (ALPR’S)?

ALPRs are high-speed, computer-controlled camera systems that are typically mounted on street poles, streetlights, highway overpasses, mobile trailers, or attached to police squad cars. ALPRs automatically capture all license plate numbers that come into view, along with the location, date, and time. The data, which includes photographs of the vehicle and sometimes its driver and passengers, is then uploaded to a central server.

Law enforcement agencies use ALPR systems for the authorized law enforcement purpose of rapidly identifying and locating vehicles of legitimate interest to law enforcement. In one common use of ALPR technology, license plate encounters are compared against law enforcement databases, also known as “hot lists”. The lists contain the license plate numbers and letters of vehicles associated with active investigations, such as those related to Amber Alerts or other missing persons, stolen vehicles, or stolen license plates. The information is also retained for a fixed retention period, though it is only re-accessible by law enforcement given a legitimate law enforcement purpose.

A second common use of ALPR technology is to canvas license plates around any crime scene to assist in the identification of suspects, victims, and witnesses. ALPR technology only acts as a pointer system that allows law enforcement to conduct searches with limited information, including partial license plate information.

WHERE ARE ALPR’S LOCATED?

ALPR units are attached to law enforcement vehicles or deployed at fixed locations, where they collect license plate information from vehicles on public roadways, public property and vehicles that are within public view. As the ALPR devices are a law enforcement investigative tool we do not provide the locations of the cameras. If subjects engaged in violent and/or serial criminal activities are made aware of the location of the devices, they could take measures to avoid detection.

The City of Tukwila issued a notice out about six months ago, letting people know they’d be using solar-powered cameras that are motion activated by vehicles. Police say it helps them investigate crimes. Software on the camera compares the license plate to different crime databases. If the camera catches a license plate that is on a crime database, law enforcement is alerted immediately.

THE ACLU’S RESPONSE

The ACLU of Washington says they are currently working to make sure there are clear guidelines for how government agencies use the technology.

“The information captured by the readers – including the license plate number, and the date, time, and location of every scan – is being collected and sometimes pooled into regional sharing systems. As a result, enormous databases of innocent motorists’ location information are growing rapidly. This information is often retained for years or even indefinitely, with few or no restrictions to protect privacy rights.” ~ACLU

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

Police Bodycams Hold K-9’s Accountable

Bellingham Defense Attorney, Body camera, K-9 Police Dogs, Mount Vernon Criminal Defense Attorney, Skagit County Criminal Defense, Whatcom County Criminal Defense, , , , ,

A police dog with its new 'body cam' : r/pics

Excellent article in NPR by Martin Kaste reports that drug-sniffing dogs are not impartial. Ironically, this phenomenon was proven by police body camera evidence.

For decades, American courts have had to take it on faith that drug-sniffing dogs were impartial. Testimony by a dog’s handler, along with training records and credentialing by a local K-9 organization, were usually enough. But the recent spread of body cameras now threatens to upend that faith.

Historically, that claim would have been nearly impossible to prove. However, a recent lawsuit reveals a nagging doubt about drug-sniffing dogs: that handlers might influence them to alert to a scent that may not be there.

FEDERAL LAWSUIT IN TEXAS POTENTIALLY UNDERMINES K-9 UNIT LEGITIMACY.

A newly filed federal lawsuit in Texas shows cameras’ potential to undermine K-9 unit legitimacy. Houston resident Alek Schott accuses Bexar County Sheriff’s deputy Joel Babb of pulling him over on Interstate 35 on false pretenses, and then, when he refused to give permission to search his pickup truck, he says K-9 unit deputy Martin A. Molina III prompted his dog to “alert” to the scent of drugs.

Here, Schott requested and received the officers’ body camera footage, giving him almost the same view the K-9 handler had — including the moment the handler’s right hand made a gesture toward the attentive dog, which then jumped up on the pickup’s door. No drugs were found in Schott’s pickup, and the county later reimbursed him for damage done during the search — including dog scratches outside and inside the truck.

ARE K-9 POLICE TRAINED TO “ALERT” ON COMMAND?

Research has shown handlers may not even realize they’re doing it. Some K-9 trainers have called for “double-blind” testing of the dogs, in which the location and existence of test drugs are randomized, unknown even to the dog’s handler. But that approach has been slow to catch on, and is often met with hostility.

Former K-9 officer and trainer Andy Falco hopes the spread of body cameras will change that. Falco works as an expert witness in cases involving sniffer dogs, and he says the number of legal challenges based on close-up video has exploded. Most cases involve cameras, now, and close-up reviews of every gesture and move of handlers and dogs. In one case he worked on, the Idaho Supreme Court threw out a drug conviction because it decided the K-9 “trespassed” on a vehicle with its paw — a degree of after-the-fact scrutiny that would have been impossible before body cameras.

“I think it’s good for the K-9 units that these things are out there . . . It’ll make them train harder, and perhaps even some of them that weren’t doing double-blind sniffs will start doing double-blind sniffs.” ~Former K-9 Officer Andy Falco

And when Falco is shown the video from Bexar County, he sees why Schott is suing. “The right hand facing up, and then moving it upward — that is the command to sit. There’s not any reason why he would be doing it where he’s doing it, so it is out of place,” he says. “That appears to be a cue of some sort that he gives the dog.”

Other K-9 trainers say the video isn’t a slam-dunk, and that there could be innocent explanations for the gesture. But one thing is clear to them: going forward, K-9 units should expect their every move and gesture could come under review after the search is over.

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 State Ranked 23rd In The Nation For Drug Use

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

Cities begin forming drug possession laws after Washington bill failed to pass legislature | KOMO

Insightful article in The Center Square by journalist Brett Davis shows reveals Washington ranks at No. 23 in the nation for drug use. The article follows on the heels of a WalletHub study.

To compile its rankings, WalletHub compared all 50 states and the District of Columbia across 21 key metrics, including arrests, overdose rates, opioid prescriptions, and employee drug testing laws.

Washington came in at No. 3 – just behind Vermont and Oregon, respectively – in terms of the highest percentage of adult drug users. The Evergreen State also took the No. 3 ranking, behind Oregon and Colorado, in terms of the highest percentage of adults with unmet drug-treatment needs.

Per WalletHub’s report, Washington ranked 51st in the nation – dead last – with the fewest people receiving substance abuse treatment per 1,000 drug users.

It wasn’t all bad news for Washington, however, which accounts for the state’s overall in-between ranking.

“Washington ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of drug use . . . On the downside, the state has a large share of adults who used illicit drugs in the past month, almost 22%, and does not consider substance abuse during pregnancy a crime. It also has the third largest share of adults who couldn’t get treatment for illicit drug use in the past year, 8.5%.” ~WalletHub analyst Jill Gonzalez

WalletHub’s study notes America’s war against drug abuse has “a long and storied history in the United States.

“Yet despite the country’s best efforts to fight it, the problem is getting worse, and is exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic,” the report states. “There were over 100,000 drug overdose deaths in the 12-month period ending in April 2021, up 28.5% from the previous year. It’s crucial for the government to address this issue and prevent it from getting any worse.”

The top 10 states and state designates in terms of drug use:

1. West Virginia

2. District of Columbia

3. Arkansas

4. Missouri

5. New Mexico

6. Nevada

7. Colorado

8. Michigan

9. Oregon

10. Tennessee

The bottom 10 states in terms of drug use:

51. Minnesota

50. Hawaii

49. Utah

48. Idaho

47. Iowa

46. North Dakota

45. Nebraska

44. Virginia

43. South Dakota

42. Georgia

Dozens of cities in Washington state are considering new bans on possession or public use of illegal drugs. That’s after state legislators failed to reach an agreement on a new drug law in the final hours of the 2023 legislative session.

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.

Police Departments Relaxing Recruitment Qualifications

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

Learn About Becoming a Police Officer

NewsNation reports that police departments nationwide are struggling to recruit new officers, especially as more agencies have reported upticks in resignations and retirements.

Across major American cities, new strategies and relaxed entry requirements are being implemented. Some say it helps gain new recruits, while others believe it will weaken police forces. According to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, 78% of agencies reported issues recruiting qualified candidates. About 50% of agencies have changed their internal policies in order to gain additional qualified candidates. And about 25% of law-enforcement agencies said they eliminated services, units or positions altogether due to an inability to staff their departments adequately.

Nowadays, departments are coming up with new ways to appeal to recruits. The city of Golden, Colorado, is shifting to a 32-hour workweek. This, while still promising they will maintain the same number of officers patrolling the streets.

“Thirty-two-hour work week, where pay, benefits, things of that nature do not change,” said Sgt. Ben Salentine of the Golden Police Department. “That gives each one of our employees that extra time to spend how they want. Do they want to use an extra eight hours a week to go to the gym? Go for it. Spend it with your family? Go for it. That (is) recreation time that really allows us to really be our best selves for the community.”

The Golden Police Department is expected to start the four-day workweek program on a six-month trial. City officials believe the change will improve employee retention, engagement and the well-being of their officers.

Other cities such as New Orleans and Chicago have waived college credit requirements for some recruits. And in other states including Massachusetts, departments have eliminated the sit-up test due to the number of recruits failing to meet the requirement, preventing them from joining the force.

My opinion? Law enforcement is a difficult profession. Police work is rife with stressors. They experience sleep deprivation, long shift hours, societal isolation, and continued exposure to negative human elements. Police are in constant danger. It’s no wonder many become overly suspicious of everything and everyone.

It is also important to realize that they take an oath to serve and protect their community.  Police misconduct may happen during the course of contact and/or arrests. When it does, police contact may include unlawful searches and seizures.

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.